On Friday, August14th, 2026, Luigi Mangione appeared in federal court alongside his defense team, Karen Friedman Agnifilo and her husband Mark Agnifilo, and pled guilty to both remaining federal charges: (1) Stalking—Travel in Interstate Commerce, and (2) Stalking—Use of Interstate Facilities. Federal counts three and four, for “Murder through use of a firearm” and “Knowingly using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of counts one and two,” respectively, were both dismissed earlier this year on January 30, 2026, leaving only the interstate stalking charges in the federal case.

This is noteworthy in that, the federal count of “Murder through use of a firearm” was the one that carried the potential of a death penalty sentence if convicted. Since the charge being dismissed in January, there has been no risk of the death penalty even in the event of a conviction in the federal trial. Keep this fact in mind as you read Mangione’s admission statement below, and we’ll come back to it in the analysis.

As I have for every state and federal hearing since February 2025, I had “eyes and ears” inside the courtroom to bring you a first person perspective that you won’t find in any other reporting on this case. For hearings that I have not been able to personally fly to NYC for, I’ve had a reporting assistant in my place, as was the case for Friday’s plea hearing. We both utilize the general public line, without press passes, getting a spot in line 14 to 48 hours in advance of the hearing time ensure entry. For this hearing, we were #3 in the public line, starting at 4:30pm Thursday the 13th, for the 11am hearing on Friday the 14th.

Only 20 members of the public were allowed into the courtroom, with court employees taking the first 20 people in the public line’s full names about an hour before opening the doors, while informing everyone past #20 that they would be permitted to enter into an overflow room until it reached capacity.

Inside Courtroom 110, 40 Foley Sqaure, New York, New York

Inside the courtroom, the credentialed press occupied the lions share of the seating, taking up the middle rows in between the two rows of reserved seating in the front and two rows for the public in the back.

The front two rows on the left were reserved for Mangione’s entire legal team, while the front two rows on the right would eventually be filled in by Brian Thompson’s family and UnitedHealthcare coworkers. Thompson’s wife, Paulette, and his mother walked in together just before the hearing began, seated in the first row directly in front of Judge Garnett. Approximately 10 UnitedHealthcare executives and former colleagues of Thompson then filed into the courtroom, taking the row directly behind them. Thompson’s sons were not present.

According to my reporter, the atmosphere in the room changed markedly and noticeably when Thompson’s family and colleagues entered, becoming quiet and tense. Until then, there had still been much chatter among those in attendance regarding whether or not a guilty plea would actually be entered. The presence of Thompson’s widow and mother quickly silenced that chatter, with only a few whispers now saying that the guilty plea must definitely be happening.

Soon after Thompson’s family and coworkers were seated, Mangione was led into the hearing by guards on each side. Instead of a suit or even a slacks and button down shirt or sweater, Luigi was wearing the standard-issue tan prison uniform issued by MDC Brooklyn, the federal prison he has been sharing with P. Diddy since his extradition to New York from Pennsylvania following his arrest.

Thompson’s widow and mother watched him take every step down the center aisle of the courtroom, while Mangione did not look at them at all. In fact, he continued to avoid even turning his head towards that entire side of room throughout the full length of the proceeding. The Agnifilos sat on either side of him at the defense table. Karen handed him a stack of papers, whispering something inaudible to the rest of the courtroom, only for Luigi’s ears. He appeared to review the papers, signing them with a pen provided by Mark, just prior to Judge Garnett entering.

The hearing was officially called to order, and KFA immediately announced that Mangione was prepared to plead guilty. Hushed murmurs filled the courtroom.

Before Mangione was permitted to enter his guilty pleas, Judge Garnett went through a series of required competency questions with him. She went over his name, date of birth, education, and mental health, before asking him if he was under the influence of any alcohol, drugs, or prescription medication. He answered that the only medication he had taken was Trazedone, for sleep, two nights prior, but stated that it in no way impeded his ability to understand or participate in the proceeding.

Of particular interest to me is that fact that when asked whether he had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness, Mangione answered in the negative. Another fact for you to keep in mind that I’ll be coming back to.

Garnett then walked Mangione through the constitutional rights he was surrendering by pleading guilty: his right to a speedy and public trial, his right to require the government to prove its case, and his right to challenge a determination of guilt. And there’s something else she made unmistakably clear, which was that there is no sentencing deal attached to this plea. You read that correctly. This was not a “plea deal.” Federal prosecutors did not give him anything in exchange for his guilty pleas.

Luigi Mangione’s Statement

Before taking his pleas, Judge Garnett required Mangione to explain, in his own words, exactly what he had done that made him guilty of the federal offenses. This is when Mangione read his prepared statement acknowledging his guilt. As he gazed down at the paper in front of him, Garnett told him that he could sit or stand. He chose to sit.

Here is the full text transcription of Mangione’s statement of admission and guilt that he read aloud:

“After years of enduring severe pain from a broken back, navigating the obstacles of the health insurance system and witnessing similar experiences of countless others, I learned that UnitedHealthcare would be holding its annual investor conference in New York City on December 4, 2024, although the specific location was not publicly disclosed.

I then researched the event online. I observed that the annual conference of America’s largest healthcare organization with the stated mission to make health…excuse me…with the stated mission to make the health system work better for everyone, would be attended by company executives, the board of directors, and hundres of investors—not doctors, nurses, or patients.

In November of 2024, I traveled from outside of New York State to Manhattan. I then emailed the UnitedHealthcare leadership posing as an investor at a firm managing over $50 billiom in assets requesting information about the conference. Unlike my previous interactions with insurers, I received an immediate response within an hour.

Before traveling to New York, I used a 3D printer to make part of a gun, and I equipped the gun with the silencer and magazine. My travel to New York and email to UnitedHealthcare was with the intent to shoot Brian Thompson.

On the morning of December 4, 2024, I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan and he died. When I did so, I understood that my actions would place him in fear of death ot serious bodily injury. I knew what I was doing was illegal.”

I encourage you to read, absorb, and sit with that statement for a few moments.

.

.

.

What did it bring up for you, if anything?

It brought up quite a lot for me. But before I go paragraph by paragraph explaining every red flag I see, let’s revisit some facts from above, as promised.

Fact 1: The only remaining federal charges were both Stalking charges, with the murder charge (and attached potential death penalty) and aggravated stalking with a firearm charge both having been dismissed in January of this year.

If this is the case, why did Mangione structure his statement to admit to so much beyond the stalking, including shooting and killing Brian Thompson? The key here is that the federal indictment ties the stalking charges to being done “for the purpose of” “killing Brian Thompson…” (Federal complaint)

Fact 2: When asked by Judge Garnett whether he had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness of any kind, Mangione replied that he had not.

This makes the defense team’s June notice of intent to file an “Extreme Emotional Disturbance” (EDD) defense in the state trial—which was promptly withdrawn within 24 hours—even more bizarre than it already was. That affirmative defense, which can result in a second degree murder charge being downgraded to first degree manslaughter if successful, requires establishing a psychiatric basis for the defendant’s “extreme emotional disturbance” under which they committed the alleged crime. This necessitates turning over the defendant’s full psychiatric medical record. The notice of intent to enter the EDD defense was promptly withdrawn a mere one day after being filed.

What could have possibly made the defense believe this was a viable defense option if Mangione had not ever been diagnosed with any mental illness and had no psychiatric medical record?

Fact 3: There was no plea deal in place. Mangione is getting absolutely nothing in exchange for his guilty pleas and accompanying statement admitting guilt.

This means that no lawyers on either the prosecution or the defense had or could give any guaruntees about what sentencing will ultimately be imposed. Judge Garnett retains full discretion over sentencing, and Mangione is not entitled to any negotiated reduction or leniency because he pled guilty.

I saw countless posts on social media from clueless “Luigi Lasses” insisting that he must have gotten something extremely worthwhile in exchange for his pleas, otherwise he wouldn’t have agreed to it, because he’s too smart! This is completely false. He received nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Arguably the only thing he “got” was the ability to renew his Motion to Dismiss the state charges based on double jeopardy—a motion his defense team already made and had denied by Judge Carro, due to the requirements under CPL 40.30 not being met. That rule requires that either a conviction as the result of a guilty plea or jury selection in the other case to have occurred before double jeopardy can be invoked. With the federal trial not slated to begin until 2027 and jury selection for the state trial to begin in early September of this year, this left a conviction through guilty plea as the only way to invoke CPL 40.20.

Indeed, this is exactly what happened, as I predicted it would in my last article. Immediately following the entry of Mangione’s guilty pleas in federal court on Friday, his lawyers walked from 40 Foley Square over to 100 Centre Street (the state courthouse) and filed a new motion to dismiss counts three (second degree murder) through ten (firearms counts) in light of his guilty plea. You can read the full motion they filed here.

My Issues With the Statement

Let’s go paragraph by paragraph, line by line.

Here we go again with the “radicalized by back pain” narrative. I wrote about this all the way back in January 2025 in my article The Magical Back Injury, because I never bought the media’s little privileged young man gets radicalized to commit murder after healthcare system destroys his life origin story.

Luigi absolutely did have a legitimate back condition called spondylolisthesis, a spinal condition in which a fracture causes a vertebra to slip out of alignment. I’m not disputing that. He did experience a worsening of his condition that caused him pain in early 2022, ultimately deciding to undergo spinal surgery to correct it in July 2023.

What I dispute is the mythological narrative the media built around this, very quickly after his arrest. Mangione’s own Reddit and social media history painted a dramatically different picture. His posts described the surgery as extraordinarily successful. He repeatedly encouraged other people he met online with the same condition not to be afraid of surgery, saying that he wished he’d done it sooner, as the recovery time was minimal and it completely resolved his pain. His subsequent travel and physical actvity, backpacking across Southeast Asia and hiking in Hawaii, hardly suggest a man whose life had been permanently destroyed by a failed healthcare system. I go into all of this and more in my previous article.

More importantly, Mangione was not someone who couldn’t afford medical treatment.

We are talking about the scion of an extraordinarily wealthy family whose business holdings include Lorien Health Services. Whatever legitimate criticisms can be made about the American healthcare and insurance industry (and there are PLENTY), Luigi Mangione was not a victim of them. He was not sitting at home, immobile, fighting his insurance company over denials of his needed back surgery. He was not choosing between his ability to pay rent or buy food and pay for surgery.

However, through conversations online (mainly Reddit) with other people suffering from similar back problems, Mangione did appear to realize that they didn’t necessarily have the same access he did. He discussed the difficulties other patients encountered obtaining insurance approval, and even advised several others about framing surgery requests around “reduced earning capacity” rather than “quality of life,” because insurers were more responsive to economic consequences.

Now, that could certainly have affected the way he thought about healthcare. But that is very different from the story being peddled of Mangione himself spending “years” fighting some insurance bureaucracy that left him suffering and untreated until he snapped.

Which brings us to the next problem I have with his statement.

Okay. But…why UnitedHealthcare? Of all the healthcare insurers, why, specifically, UnitedHealthcare? He’s never identified a denied UnitedHealthcare claim for himself or someone he knows. There’s never been any claim of any personal dispute with the company. No ties or interactions of any kind with Brian Thompson. He doesn’t identify some specific UnitedHealthcare policy he took issue with that suddenly became the catalyst.

He simply “learned” that the company was holding an investor conference in NYC and began researching it online. Then it gets even more nonsensical. Mangione explicitly calls the event an “investor conference.” But in the very next paragraph, he seems to present the fact that the attendees were, in fact, investors, as some sort of shocking revelation.

Yes. That is indeed what an investor conference is. He went from explicitly calling it an annual investor conference to the “annual conference of American’s largest healthcare organization” as if it was something open to the public. Executives, directors and investors aren’t some sinister guest list, they are the people one would ordinarily expect to attend an investor conference.

And patients? Why on earth would patients attend a corporate investor conference? Mangione is a highly intelligent man from a family that operates several multi million dollar businesses. His family members have served on boards and run substantial companies, including healthcare businesses and hospitals. The idea that he researched an investor conference and was somehow shocked to discover investors and corporate leadership would be in attendance instead of nurses pushing IV poles and patients waiting for their copays is difficult for me to take seriously.

Furthermore, it still doesn’t answer the question: Why UnitedHealthcare?

“I then emailed the UnitedHealthcare leadership posing as an investor at a firm managing over $50 billiom in assets requesting information about the conference. Unlike my previous interactions with insurers, I received an immediate response within an hour.”

My reporter described Mangione’s delivery of that last line as dry, almost a quip. But what exactly does “my previous interactions with insurers” mean? Which insurers? What interactions? Is he referring to his own healthcare history? The experiences of people he encountered online? Or is he saying he had contacted other insurance companies posing as an investor, and UnitedHealthcare is the only one who responded?

Because if it’s the latter, that creates an entirely different problem for the narrative we were just given. Did he choose UnitedHealthcare because he independently discovered its investor conference and became fixated on it? Or, had he been contacting multiple insurers looking for access to corporate events, and would have gone with whichever one gave him the information he wanted first?

The statement doesn’t tell us.

FROM WHERE? This question has bothered me for a very long time.

The government has claimed to know when Mangione arrived in Manhattan and that he entered through the Port Authority Bus Terminal on November 24, 2024. The government has further claimed, and released surveillance footage of, Luigi Mangione checking into a hostel in Manhattan and being detained in Altoona, PA, with the fake ID identifying himself as “Mark Rosario.” If investigators identified the bus, the arrival and the passenger traveling under the alleged “Mark Rosario” identity, then determining where that ticket originated should have been very easy.

I went to Port Authority Bus Terminal myself while reporting this case in New York City. I did a full walkthrough, in which I documented all of the cameras. The place is drowning in surveillance. Yet the origin of this crucial interstate journey remains conspicuously absent from the public narrative.

And now, when Mangione himself is sitting in federal court specifically admitting to and pleading guilty to a count that requires interstate travel, we get:

“from outside of New York State.” That’s it. Why are we still not being told where the trip originated? And while I’m at it, what about the fake ID for “Mark Rosario”? Why is it nowhere in his statement that he obtained a fake ID with the name “Mark Rosario”? The government’s case has long depended on Mangione moving around under this false identity with an apparently sufficiently convincing identification document to use it repeatedly to buy bus tickets and check into a hostel.

Where did that ID come from? Who made it? Who helped him obtain it? Maybe he 3D printed it, like the gun! Bringing us right into my next glaring red flag.

This may be the strangest sentence in the entire statement. Not “I made the gun,” but “I used a 3D printer to make part of a gun.” Which part? Where? Using whose 3D printer? 3D printed it with what material?vWhere did the remaining components come from? Where did the silencer come from? Where did the magazine come from? Where did the ammunition come from?

The statement is extraordinarily specific when specificity helps satisfy the government’s theory that a 3D printer was involved, and extraordinarily vague about virtually everything necessary to explain what that actually means. This matters because the “ghost gun” instantly became one of the most sensational pieces of the government’s case.

I have had questions about that weapon narrative from the beginning, particularly about exactly which components were allegedly 3D printed and whether the government’s description of the recovered firearm is mechanically consistent with the way the shooting itself has been described.

Those questions require more technical treatment than I’m going to cram into this article. But Mangione’s own formulation hardly resolves them. Quite the opposite, it raises more.

Oh, and, WTF happened to “Deny, Defend, Depose”?

This is another remarkable omission. Remember the words supposedly etched on the bullets? “Deny, Defend, Depose.” It was practically the tagline of the entire case. Authorities claimed that the words “deny,” “defend” and “depose” were written on ammunition recovered from Brian Thompson’s body after the shooting, an allegation that instantly became the centerpiece of thousands of headlines, memes and theories about motive.

Yet when Mangione finally sits in federal court and admits his guilt, explaining how he targeted UniteHealthcare and Brian Thompson, that he 3D printed “part of a gun” and then attached a silencer and magazine to it, there is no mention of the part where he etched the bullets with “deny, defend, depose.” Instead, we get the next sentence.

That’s the whole description of the shooting. After a year and a half of headlines built around an allegedly homemade weapon, a silencer, multiple shots and ammunition carrying a message supposedly explaining the motivation for the entire crime, the sworn admission just says “I shot him.” Why doesn’t it say “I shot him three times”? That’s how many times we were told he was shot, one shot for each of the etched bullets, to send the message “Deny, Defend, Depose.”

It seems like it was important that he admit to the detail of the 3D printed gun part, but this detail was not required of him. Why? I do have my own theories on this, they relate to the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Bondi v. VanDerStok, but I’ll save that for my next piece.

Then we have the sentence that actually makes the most sense out of the entire statement.

Remember what Mangione was actually pleading guilty to—two stalking counts. One involves interstate travel, the other involves the use of a facility of interstate commerce, i.e. email. The entire, strangely constructed statement was all to get us to this sentence.

His travel was undertaken with the requisite intent, his electronic communication was undertaken with the requisite intent, and Thompson’s death resulted. While he wasn’t pleading guilty to the federal murder count (that charge was gone), the remaining stalking offenses themselves were still tied to the alleged intent to kill and resulting death. Judge Garnett had to establish a sufficient factual basis for accepting the guilty pleas.

What Happens Now?

Mangione’s federal sentencing is scheduled for December 18th. Again, there is no negotiated sentence waiting for him on that day. Garnett repeatedly made clear that she retains full discretion, and that Mangione’s attorneys cannot promise him what sentence she will impose.

As explained earlier in the article, Mangione’s attorneys now have the federal guilty plea that satisfies the prior-prosecution requirement that previously stood in the way of their Article 40 argument. They immediately used it to renew their effort to prevent the state case from proceeding. Judge Carro’s granting of their motion is technically not guaranteed, but it is highly likely.

I don’t believe this was a Hail Mary move by the defense. I think this was always the whole point. Which brings me, briefly, to Karen Friedman Agnifilo and her husband Mark Agnifilo. Her husband, Marc Agnifilo, is a former federal prosecutor who served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, while KFA is a former career prosecutor who spent decades inside the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, ultimately becoming its number-two official as Chief Assistant District Attorney.

They spent years and years inside the system before entering private practice. My personal rule of thumb has always been that becoming a private defense attorney does not magically erase the institutional worldview, relationships and instincts accumulated during a career inside federal law enforcement. I never believed this defense was going to walk into a courtroom, state or federal, and tell twelve jurors that Luigi Mangione was not the shooter, and that the government’s entire narrative was wrong.

That road gets messy very quickly. It forces questions about surveillance, provenance, evidence handling, who actually did what, and potentially theories about a patsy or government involvement that a former federal prosecutor and former state prosecutor were never, in my opinion, going to touch.

When the hearing ended, Mangione was led from the courtroom. Brian Thompson’s family and former colleagues stayed seated, watching him the entire time. And according to my reporter, Mangione remained conspicuously intentional about never looking toward them as he left.

If you enjoy my work and want to support this coverage, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for as little as $5 a month. Your support helps cover the costs of reporting on this case, including paying my assistant reporter, and makes it possible for me to keep dedicating my spare time to bringing independent coverage directly to my readers.

As a special thank-you to my paid subscribers, I’ll soon be publishing my assistant reporter’s raw notes from the federal plea hearing to paid subscribers only. Her notes include extensive coverage from waiting in line outside the courthouse before the hearing, all the colorful characters she encountered along the way, conversations with the other members of the public who made it inside, exchanges with Judge Garnett and the attorneys, and many more fascinating observations and details that didn’t make the final cut of this article. Become a paid subscriber today for access to this and future exclusive content.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Please know that I deeply appreciate every one of my subscribers, and if a paid subscription isn’t for you, I’m always grateful to welcome new free subscribers as well.

Subscribe now

And if you’re already a subscriber, please consider sharing this article with someone you think would enjoy it.

Share

I have, however, been deliberately restrained about explaining exactly why I believed that. The restraint was partly professional. There is a difference between identifying glaring inconsistencies in a prosecution and declaring that you know what happened, just as there is a difference between reporting what the government can prove and speculating about what the government might be hiding.

When I began covering this case, first independently, then for House In Habit, then independently again, I was acutely aware that the fastest way to get otherwise serious questions and commentary dismissed was to package them too tightly alongside language that could easily be branded “conspiracy theory.” So, I have been careful to keep certain things from publication—though my husband and friends have heard them all come out over bottles of wine!

What I did repeatedly write, though, is that these parallel prosecutions made very little sense. I questioned how the Department of Justice (DOJ) and NY State could realistically prepare to put the same defendant on trial for the same underlying killing, with overlapping evidence, overlapping witnesses and radically different strategic consequences. It is unprecedented that the state trial could really proceed while a federal prosecution—at the time carrying the possibility of death—sat immediately behind it. My prediction was that the federal court would eventually stay the state proceedings pending the federal case’s outcome. Every time that didn’t happen, I was surprised.

But through it all, Mangione’s own defense team was making the same problem a centerpiece of their litigation: double jeopardy. Now, less than a month before jury selection was scheduled to begin for the state trial in Manhattan, we may finally have the answer.

Multiple news organizations reported today that Mangione is expected to plead guilty in federal court tomorrow (Friday, 8/14/26). His appearance before U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett is confirmed for 11 a.m. EST, but the plea itself is not. Neither Mangione’s attorneys nor the DOJ is commenting publicly, negotiations reportedly remain ongoing, and nothing becomes final unless and until Mangione himself enters, and the court accepts, a plea.

BUT…if Mangione does plead guilty tomorrow, the most consequential thing about the plea may not be what it ends in federal court. Rather, it may be what it prevents us from ever hearing in the state trial.

Two Trials Were Always One Trial Too Many

Mangione has pleaded “not guilty” in both prosecutions. His attorneys have challenged the simultaneous state and federal cases from virtually the beginning, arguing that forcing him to defend both creates double-jeopardy and self-incrimination problems.

Last September, Judge Gregory Carro (in the state case) rejected the constitutional double-jeopardy argument under the federal “dual sovereignty” doctrine, which says that New York and the United States are separate sovereigns, enabling them to separately prosecute violations of their respective laws arising from the same conduct.

Carro held that Mangione’s argument under New York Criminal Procedure Law §40.20 was premature, because the statutory bar had not yet been triggered. Under CPL §40.30, Carro explained, that protection becomes operative when the first prosecution reaches certain procedural milestones, which include a conviction by guilty plea or the swearing of a jury.

While the federal and state prosecutions have run concurrent, the state trial is set to begin jury selection in early September. I believed that this might be the legal milestone Mangione’s defense was waiting for to again invoke CPL §40.20, however, it’s now looking like the conviction by guilty plea in the federal case may happen tomorrow morning.

Interestingly, Carro also rejected the defense’s argument that allowing the state case to go first could prejudice Mangione federally. The defense specifically warned that testimony in state court could compromise his federal defense, a concern that Carro dismissed as “speculative.” Yet neither myself, or any attorney I discussed the matter with, believed it was “speculative” at all.

Think about the strategic absurdity of it. A defendant cannot simply tell Jury Number One one story and then stroll across Foley Square and present Jury Number Two with an incompatible one. Decisions about whether to testify, what facts to concede, which witnesses to call, what mental-state evidence to introduce and even which theory of defense to pursue can reverberate into the second prosecution.

Which brings us to a very stange 24 hours in this case.

The Psychiatric Defense That Appeared and Promptly Vanished

About a month after the May 18 hearing (that I attended in person and covered here), reports broke that Mangione’s attorneys intended to pursue an “extreme emotional disturbance,” or EED, defense in the state case.

My immediate reaction was essentially: WTF?

EED is not an insanity defense, nor is it a claim of innocence. It is an affirmative defense under New York law that can reduce an intentional second-degree murder charge to first-degree manslaughter if the defendant proves he acted under an “extreme emotional disturbance” for which there was a “reasonable explanation or excuse.”

In other words, it starts from a premise dramatically different from “I’m innocent.”

This was particularly bizarre because Mangione had spent the previous year pleading “not guilty,” while his attorneys aggressively attacked the government’s evidence. At the time, I posted to my Instagram stories that an EED defense made absolutely no sense, especially in light of the success his defense team had demonstrated in getting a great deal of evidence from the Altoona, PA arrest tossed out.

Then came another twist. Within roughly 24 hours of the defense’s intended psychiatric strategy becoming public, they withdrew it. The withdrawal came on the very day the defense faced a deadline to turn over psychiatric material to prosecutors. The notice itself was strikingly terse, saying only that the defense “respectfully withdraws CPL § 250.10 notice at this time.”

Many online commentators caught on to the problem with EDD when it comes to the dual federal and state prosecutions. Whatever an EED defense might accomplish in Manhattan Supreme Court, there is no corresponding EED defense for Mangione in federal court.

In an article by NewsNation, attorney Jeffrey Lichtman (not affiliated with Mangione or either case) described the initial decision to put forward the EED notice as “potentially disastrous” because an EED theory necessarily moves the defense toward admitting the intentional killing while contesting the degree of culpability. Another attorney speaking to NewsNation, Mark Geragos, similarly focused on the danger of making such a concession in a state proceeding with a federal prosecution waiting behind it.

And then—poof! Almost as soon as it had appeared in the headlines, it was gone.

The episode illustrated precisely why I never believed these two trials could proceed cleanly in sequence. Every strategic move in one has the potential to threaten evidence, leverage, or ammunition in the other.

But What Was the Defense Actually Going to Be?

There is another question I have had since the beginning, and tomorrow’s reported plea makes it considerably more intriguing: Were we ever going to hear Mangione’s lawyers argue that Luigi Mangione is truly innocent of the charges? That he was, in fact, not the shooter?

Because, despite his not-guilty pleas, that is not the defense strategy we have watched unfold publicly. What we have watched is an extraordinarily aggressive, and highly successful, suppression strategy.

The defense has fought to exclude the searches, statements, gun and notebook from Altoona, while challenging the government’s conduct at nearly every turn. They have also successfully narrowed the indictment and worked to keep some of the prosecution’s most damaging evidence from ever reaching a jury.

That is absolutely legitimate criminal defense work, and I have continued to be impressed by how effective it has been in this case. But it isn’t the same thing as affirmatively saying: my client is not guilty because he didn’t do it.

That distinction has bothered me because my own reporting on this case began with the timeline of events released in the federal complaint, which you can read in full here. When I traveled to New York for Mangione’s first hearing in February 2025, I did something decidedly unglamorous: I went to every single location myself.

I walked and filmed portions of the alleged route. I went into Central Park, and I examined the locations described in the government’s timeline. I timed the alleged transportation Mangione used from the relevant points, and I compared what I observed with the timestamps and sequence alleged in the original federal complaint. I’ve never released that footage, but I soon will.

This is where we arrive at the theory I alluded to earlier—the one I have largely kept out of my published reporting. Because the moment you seriously entertain the possibility that Mangione was not the shooter, you are forced to ask the obvious next question: then who was?

That question takes you very quickly into territory that mainstream media and serious attorneys tend to avoid like professional kryptonite: multiple actors, government involvement, a patsy, the “deep state.” It brings you across an unwritten boundary of acceptable professional discourse, where a journalist becomes a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and a lawyer a “quack” before anyone bothers examining the underlying evidence. For that reason, I have mostly stayed on the safer side of that line: documenting the inconsistencies without telling readers where I think those inconsistencies may ultimately lead.

My conclusion after personally documenting each New York City location identified in the federal government’s official timeline has not changed. I do not believe the publicly alleged timeline comfortably describes the movements of one person. There are timing, distance and transportation questions that I believe deserved to be put before a jury and tested against the government’s evidence.

Other independent researchers noticed similar problems early on, including questions involving Citi Bike timing and surveillance locations. There have also long been disputes online over whether the various surveillance images depict the same individual. Those observations do not prove who killed Brian Thompson. They do not prove a second person existed. And they certainly do not, standing alone, prove a government conspiracy.

But they are inconsistencies that are exactly what trials are for. The government says it possesses an enormous surveillance record, “terabytes and terabytes” of it, according to every evidentiary hearing held so far. The government has used the claimed volume of the evidence as reason for why they took so long to turn it over to the defense, blowing three separate discovery deadlines.

If you have the evidence, show it. We all want to see it. Put the timestamps on a screen, establish the chain of custody, identify the cameras, call the witnesses. Let the defense cross-examine them. Let twelve jurors decide whether it all adds up. For almost two years, the public has been told that the evidence against Luigi Mangione is overwhelming. If a guilty plea is entered and accepted in federal court tomorrow, we’ll never get to see if the government can actually prove it.

The Trial Was Already Becoming a Fight Over Who Could Watch It

The timing is almost cinematic because, until approximately five minutes ago in legal time, everyone was fighting over who would even be allowed inside the upcoming state trial and jury selections.

On July 31, Mangione’s lawyers filed an extraordinary objection to the court’s media-access plan. They said they had learned through independent journalist Matthew Russell Lee that the Office of Court Administration planned no overflow courtroom observation, and that only six journalists would be permitted to cover jury selection.

According to the defense, they had also been told that general trial access would be limited to 68 journalists, and that selection had effectively been outsourced to a private attorney representing approximately a dozen legacy-media organizations.

As the only citizen journalist who has managed to get inside every single federal and state hearing either in person or by proxy by using the general public line, you can imagine how closely I was following these developments. After all this, was I really not going to be able to get into a single day of the trial? How could this be allowed?

The defense wanted names—who were these 68 hand picked journalists? By what criteria and by whom were they selected? Mangione’s attorneys wanted a hearing to discuss this, and, preferably, the entire trial to be livestreamed to the public.

Then, on August 3, the defense demanded preservation and production of communications between OCA and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office concerning press access and requested an evidentiary hearing. When prosecutors suggested defense counsel should be admonished for making “false statements,”Mangione’s lawyers responded with a paragraph that deserves considerably more attention than it has received.

In it, they accused the prosecution of having listened to a privileged attorney-client call for approximately eleven minutes; causing a subpoena for Mangione’s medical records to issue using what the defense called “a fictitious court date;” and unlawfully recording Mangione alone inside an Altoona Police Department interview room without a court-ordered wiretap. They also accused prosecutors of refusing to correct what the defense says was a “false public statement” attributing to Mangione’s mother the claim that the killing was “something she could see her son doing.”

Those are not internet rumors, they are allegations made by his attorneys to a judge in a filed court document. On Tuesday, August 11th, Carro pushed back sharply on the defense’s characterization of the press access process, ultimately announcing that an overflow room would be available for the September trial. Reports indicate that 84 to 86 news organizations were expected to attend. Notably absent in Carro’s statement was anything about access for the general public.

Now, two days later, the possibility of a federal guilty plea puts into serious question whether there will be a September trial at all.

The “Crazy Fangirl” Problem

As my readers and subscribers know, I have a particular interest in the public-access fight because I have covered these proceedings without a court-issued press pass, using the general-public line.

To my knowledge, I am the only citizen journalist who has attended every federal and state Mangione hearing I’ve covered, either in person or by proxy, through the general public line. That vantage point has given me a very different view of the media circus around this case.

At the May 18 hearing, I watched women who had become fixtures at the front of the supporter line participate in what looked like, from where I stood, a full-blown photo shoot with the New York Post. The resulting coverage would help turn them into caricatures of Mangione’s support base—the “Ghouls Next Door,” women presented to the public as macabre fangirls who thought Brian Thompson deserved to die.

What I found especially strange was that these same personalities had somehow obtained press passes. I had already looked into New York press credentials for myself, and the process requires applicants to demonstrate actual news-gathering work, including published material. I have written extensively about this case, including a great deal of live and in person coverage in NYC, and still I was worried that I wouldn’t be able to obtain one. Don’t get me wrong—I was still going to try. Especially after the defense’s filings containing the claims that the public could be shut out entirely from the trial. But how did these women get their press passes?

I have not been able to locate any body of reporting from these women that would meet the standards of the press pass application process for New York City. Nor can I prove who facilitated their credentials, let alone prove that it was the New York Post themselves. And I certainly won’t turn suspicion into fact just because the suspicion makes for a more salacious story.

But I can tell you what I personally observed: women whose most inflammatory comments reliably fed the “crazed Mangione fangirl” narrative were simultaneously being photographed, interviewed and amplified by the very media ecosystem profiting from that narrative.

That is why the defense’s fight over hand-selected reporters mattered to me. When only a small group of journalists is permitted inside the room, those journalists become the public’s eyes and ears. What they notice, what they omit, and how they frame what happened inevitably shapes the record everyone else receives.

Legacy outlets have largely reported the government’s theory as the baseline narrative of the case. A trial changes that dynamic. Evidence gets admitted in public, witnesses get cross-examined, and contradictions become observable. Independent journalists and ordinary citizens sitting in the gallery hear the same testimony the institutional press hears. While the press can shape a narrative, it cannot cross-examine a witness back into compliance with a pre-existing one.

And Then There Is Pennsylvania

There is actually a third jurisdiction still sitting awkwardly underneath all of this.

Mangione was arrested in Pennsylvania, and his Pennsylvania lawyer, Thomas Dickey, has been fighting an entirely different procedural battle over getting his client physically returned to Blair County.

In an August 2025 memorandum, Dickey argued that Pennsylvania retained “primary custody” because Pennsylvania authorities arrested Mangione first and never expressly relinquished it. He further argued that the Commonwealth could not simply declare Mangione unavailable because federal authorities refused to produce him. Pennsylvania, he said, had to use the proper federal process, including seeking a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, if it wanted to satisfy its Rule 600 due-diligence obligations.

So while New York and the federal government spent months preparing overlapping prosecutions over Thompson’s death, Pennsylvania was effectively saying, “Excuse me, that’s our defendant too.” Three sovereign criminal justice systems, one defendant. Multiple evidentiary fights, multiple theories of prosecution, and multiple clocks running. Notably, Dickey has not made any filings in the PA case in a year, since that August 2025 memorandum. What will happen to the PA case if both NY federal and state trials do not go forward as a result of a plea deal?

Somehow, the state of New York expected the public to believe that this would all proceed neatly. I never did, and neither did anyone who’s been following the case closely.

What Happens at 11 A.M. Tomorrow Matters

Earlier this week, reports began circulating that federal plea negotiations might again be active. On Wednesday, an unexpected Friday conference began generating serious speculation. Today, that reporting became much more concrete.

ABC, AP, Reuters, the NYT and other outlets now report that Mangione is expected to plead guilty tomorrow. Sources caution that the negotiations remain ongoing and that no plea exists until Mangione actually enters one in court.

We still do not know exactly what that means. Will he plead guilty to every count, or only some? What factual admissions will Judge Garnett require from him? Is there an agreed sentencing recommendation? What, if anything, has the government promised?Most critically: What conduct will Mangione personally admit under oath?

And of course, what happens to NY’s People v. Mangione case the moment the federal plea becomes a conviction?

The defense’s New York statutory double-jeopardy argument was previously rejected as premature precisely because there had not yet been a guilty plea or sworn jury. If tomorrow supplies that missing event, expect the defense to return to Carro immediately and argue that New York’s broader statutory protections now bar some or all of the state prosecution. You can also expect the Manhattan District Attorney to fight that conclusion.

So, I’ll refrain from declaring the state trial dead tonight. But its pulse just got very weak. Jury selection is, as of now, still scheduled for September 8th.

Mangione’s defense team and the state prosecution spent the last several weeks debating six reporters, 68 reporters, 86 organizations, public seating, livestreams, overflow rooms and whether spectators could be trusted with access to one of the most consequential criminal trials in recent memory. Tomorrow morning, a guilty plea could make all of that academic.

The Trial We Were Never Going To See

From very early on, I have privately considered possibilities considerably darker than the legal theories I was willing to publish. I have told people close to me that I did not believe the official story adequately explained what I was seeing, but only briefly touched on these matters in writing.

I have wondered whether Mangione’s role in what happened on December 4 was different from the role the government has attributed to him, as well as whether more than one person was involved. Perhaps the most troubling and dark of my concerns related to what his role truly was, was for his safety in federal custody.

Such has been my conviction that the government could not actually allow a trial to happen, that it crossed my mind more than once whether he might encounter an “unfortunate accident” while in custody. I am quite aware of that magnitude of that sort of speculation, which is why I have refrained from writing about it to this point. It’s important to preserve the distinction between by own intuition and facts supported by evidence.

But I’m not going to pretend anymore that I haven’t been asking the underlying question: What if a trial was the one thing this case could never survive, and the one thing both sides were never going to let happen?

I don’t mean because the discrepancies I’ve identified necessarily prove a conspiracy, or because the government’s suppression losses establish that its case was fabricated. A trial could very well have ended with Luigi Mangione’s conviction. But it also would have required the government to do something it has not yet had to do in public: put the entire story together, from beginning to end, under the rules of evidence and subject to cross-examination.

I wanted to see the government’s timeline tested, and the surveillance evidence authenticated and sequenced. I wanted to know whether the person checking into a hostel, the person moving through Manhattan, the person riding through Central Park and the masked person captured on suveillance shooting Brian Thompson could actually be established as one continuous human being moving through one coherent timeline.

And I wanted to know what Mangione’s defense attorneys were ultimately going to say when the judge turned to them and said, “Your case.” Because to this point, his attorneys have never even tried to publicly argue that he is not the shooter, despite that being effectively what a “not guilty” plea implies. Don’t even get me started on the public statements made by the representatives of Luigi’s Legal Defense Fund, essentially praising him for the murder to which he has pled not guilty.

Maybe we were about to find out, and maybe we never were. Tomorrow at 11 a.m. EST, we’ll learn whether a guilty plea will be entered in the federal case, or if Mangione decides at the last minute not to enter the plea.

I have arranged for a trusted reporting assistant who has worked with me before to be inside the federal courtroom, taking detailed notes from the general-public side, rather than through the credentialed press apparatus. If a plea is entered, what Mangione actually says and the terms of the plea deal read aloud will matter enormously, and I wanted my own “eyes and ears” there for it, so I can report on it to you.

And if the plea means the September trial disappears, I’ll begin releasing portions of the reporting and footage I had been holding for jury selection and trial: my reconstruction of the timeline, the locations, the transportation routes and the inconsistencies that jumped out to me as an attorney while conducting my own investigation as a citizen journalist.

Because if there is never going to be a trial, I’m still going to ask the questions the jury never got to.

If you’ve found my independent coverage valuable, please consider subscribing and supporting my work. It’s what allows me to keep showing up, investigating, and putting trusted eyes and ears inside the courtroom when I can’t be there myself.

Subscribe now

Share

Share An Astonishing Achievement

I was nervous, as I had not hired a line-sitter this time, causing me to briefly question whether it would be worth sacrificing my sleep and comfort when there was a very real possibility I’d not make it inside. As I approached the entrance, my heart skipped. The line was not nearly as long as I’d feared! It looked like I could actually have a chance at making it inside.

Heading straight for the end of the line, I asked if I was standing in the correct place, to which those in line were quick to ask “what number are you?” in reply. My heart, which had only seconds ago been gayly skipping, tripped and face planted into the mud. Shit. They all had numbers. To be more specific, they were all wearing red wristbands with Luigi’s face, a QR Code, and a number. I mentally counted everyone in line, which appeared to me to be over 30 people. I knew from experience that the Court never lets in more than 24 people from the general public. Then I noticed that many of them were wearing press passes, meaning they wouldn’t be counted with the public line.

While I scanned the premises trying to identify who was in control of the numbered wristbands and where the eff they were, an individual with a lovely Australian accent tapped me on the shoulder and asked if I was trying to join the public line. After yelling “YES I AM!!” at them as if I were on a Tony Robbins retreat and had just been asked if I was ready to unlock my potential to up-level my life, they produced a plastic snack bag from their pocket. It contained a single, red, numbered wristband inside of it. “There’s one left, number 24, it’s yours.”

As my readers may have noticed, my favorite part of every hearing is observing all of the people involved and listening to the stories being told all around me. I try to take you all into the experience with me, like you’ve fallen into a pensieve containing my entire memory of the day. You can read the judge’s orders online. Here is the link to the 17-page order. Although the legal analysis is important (and I will absolutely provide my opinions and commentary on it), it is secondary to the storytelling of why this case feels like it has touched an exposed nerve ending across every segment of our society.

With my #24 wristband secured, I was able to relax a bit and do what I do best: observe and listen. There was a cameraman holding a large video camera, which several of the others in line turned their back to as a gesture signaling they would not speak to the press. So he tried something else: lowering his camera and speaking to people face to face, without recording. When he did this, people began to open up with him, and soon he was having deep, meaningful conversations.

I overheard him explaining to someone that after covering the case for so long, he had noticed that nearly everyone drawn to this story had some personal experience with the violence of the American health insurance industry. Either it had happened to them directly, or to someone they loved. He spoke about people losing family members after denied treatments, about lives destroyed by medical debt, about ordinary people bankrupted by emergencies they could not control. “Everyone’s got a story,” he said, and he did not mean a story about a fascination with Luigi Mangione. He meant that almost every person he’d interviewed over the last year and a half carried some private wound, grief, resentment, or memory connected to the larger system orbiting this case. His words stuck with me all day.

One by one, more members of the press approached people waiting in line, asking the same question they’ve all been asking since the first hearing in February 2025: Why are you here? Why are you interested in this case?

I’m interested in this case because it will forever be part of the wild, irrational, tragic, terrifying, beautiful story that is America. It contains nearly every fracture line in modern American life at once: rich and poor, healthcare and profit, institutional power and public rage, violence and morality, conspiracy and spectacle. At the center of it all is a young, wealthy Italian-American man who never personally experienced the realities of denied healthcare or medical bankruptcy, yet who has somehow emerged as a folk hero for many working-class Americans through the killing of a health insurance executive who, fairly or unfairly, came to symbolize everything people believe is cruel and corrupt about the system.

Whether Luigi Mangione is guilty or innocent has, for many, become secondary to the larger and more dangerous questions the case has unleashed: did Brian Thompson deserve to die? If so, who else does? When do people stop believing reform is possible? When does violence stop feeling unthinkable and start feeling inevitable? The shockwaves from this case have reached everyone from billionaires and corporate executives to ordinary people standing outside NY Criminal Court before sunrise. Whether we like it or not, this case has already become part of this American story.

By the time we finally entered the courthouse, I was running on almost no sleep, no food, and pure adrenaline. The press line was nearly four times larger than the public line, and nearly everyone in the public line had notebooks for taking hand-written notes. I loved seeing so many of us attempting to document the events. Although, I did wonder to myself whether we were more like independent journalists or archivists, trying to preserve something we suspect is being distorted.

Inside the courtroom, two entire rows remained empty behind the public seating section. I thought about the woman from France who was behind me in line and didn’t make it in. She couldn’t believe she missed it by one person. There was plenty of room for her. TV cameras and photographers were present for the first time, as this was the first hearing in which video was permitted. Their crew spent what felt like an eternity testing camera angles while the courtroom waited for Judge Gregory Carro to finally take the bench.

The contrast between Karen Friedman Agnifilo’s entrance at the February 2025 hearing and her appearance Monday could not have been more stark. Then, there had been an almost celebrity-like frenzy surrounding her arrival. Everyone had erupted in applause and cheers when they saw her, earning a terse reprimand from court security. This time, the defense team entered quietly and professionally, with no outbursts from the public, filling the first two rows of the right side of the courtroom.

Agnifilo herself appeared thinner than the last time I saw her, dressed in a muted turquoise pantsuit. Her daughter and paralegal, Sofia Agnifilo, dressed in subdued black professional attire. She looked incredibly polished, with perfectly curled hair and flawless makeup that would have taken me 3 hours or more. The prosecution entered about 10 minutes later, dressed almost entirely in dark navy and black. The hearing was supposed to start at 9am, but was significantly delayed. By the time the prosecution team entered, I had no phone to check the time, but felt that it had to be approaching 10 a.m.

One of the biggest changes from previous hearings was the way Luigi Mangione was brought into the courtroom. In several of the past hearings, he had entered through the main back door, walking down the center aisle past every row of the public & press. That entrance created brief yet intimate moments of acknowledgment between Mangione and his biggest supporters. At the February 2025 hearing, I was able to make direct eye contact with him as he passed, which is something many others who attended earlier proceedings have described experiencing as well. This time, however, he was escorted in through a front side door near the defense table, completely bypassing the seating rows and eliminating the opportunity for any moment of connection with anyone in the audience. Whether intentional or merely logistical, the change noticeably altered the atmosphere inside the courtroom.

Mangione wore a black suit with a plain light blue button-down shirt, matching his defense team’s wardrobe request exactly. To me, he appeared slightly thinner and paler than at the last hearing. While he did not seem to be in bad spirits, he also did not appear nearly as animated or upbeat as he did at the last hearing, where he spent much more time smiling, laughing, and interacting with his attorneys. His hair appeared freshly cut, he wore a light five o’clock shadow, and, somehow, his eyebrows remained inexplicably immaculate.

Then, after months of anticipation, the actual hearing itself lasted less than 20 minutes once Judge Carro finally entered, and it felt like 15 of those minutes were spent in a private side bar. What many people did not realize about today’s hearing, was that the substantive ruling had already been distributed to the parties earlier in the day. The public hearing functioned largely as a formal announcement of the decision already contained in the detailed 17-page written order. (Provided again here for convenience.)

From the bench, Judge Carro summarized the ruling quickly: evidence seized from Mangione’s backpack during the initial McDonald’s search would be suppressed because prosecutors failed to establish exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search. However, evidence later recovered from the backpack at the police station would still be admissible. Statements made before Mangione received Miranda warnings at 9:48 a.m. would also be suppressed, unless they involved officer safety or pedigree information.

The moment Carro announced suppression of the McDonald’s backpack evidence, a chorus of audible gasps rang out from the back two rows of supporters. Many appeared ecstatic, interpreting the ruling as a devastating blow to the prosecution. Two women next to me squeezed each other’s hands in solidarity and joy. I had the distinct impression that they did not fully understand the second half of what Carro was saying.

Because while the judge suppressed the evidence recovered in the initial McDonald’s search of the backpack, he simultaneously allowed the prosecution to keep much of the same evidence through the later police station “inventory search.”

In fact, the written opinion itself contains an interesting internal tension. Judge Carro’s language regarding the initial backpack search is sharply critical of the prosecution’s Fourth Amendment arguments. He explicitly rejects the claimed “exigent circumstances” rationale for the warrantless search at McDonald’s. Yet, despite finding constitutional problems with the original search, he ultimately permits much of the evidence through the inventory-search doctrine and later warrant procedures.

Personally, I remain troubled by the chain-of-custody implications acknowledged within the opinion itself. Judge Carro notes that body camera footage initially shows the backpack at Mangione’s feet inside the McDonald’s and later shows officers moving it, but the backpack itself is not continuously visible again until the subsequent stationhouse search. In my view, that gap raises obvious evidentiary and chain-of-custody questions. If the original McDonald’s search was unconstitutional, it is difficult to ignore the amount of time the backpack then spent entirely outside Mangione’s possession and under exclusive police control while being transported to the station.

After summarizing his ruling from the bench, Judge Carro called both parties forward for a sidebar conference that lasted what felt like at least ten minutes. The courtroom could not hear any of the discussion. From where I sat, however, I could see the parties’ faces and body language as they spoke with the judge. The prosecution appeared calm and largely silent, while Agnifilo and her husband Marc Agnifilo appeared far more animated in discussion with the judge. That dynamic itself felt revealing, given the mixed nature of the ruling.

When the sidebar ended, Carro briefly stated that the bench conference concerned “scheduling and jury-selection issues.” He announced that the June 3 hearing would proceed virtually and would not be open to the public. During the hearing, Mangione flashed a few friendly smiles toward the defense team, but the overall mood surrounding him felt markedly different this time. The energy in the room was more subdued, more restrained, and perhaps more reflective of the reality that this ultimately was not an especially favorable ruling for the defense. Then, abruptly, the hearing simply ended.

As a California attorney, this continues to strike me as one of the stranger aspects of New York criminal court procedure. In California courts, hearings begin and end with formal announcements and clear procedural transitions. In these Manhattan criminal proceedings, there is an almost jarring hurriedness to the process.

Mangione himself was escorted out quickly through the same front side entrance he was brought in through, again giving no opportunity for him to turn or glance towards the public rows. As soon as Judge Carro exited, court officers immediately began ushering the public out, while the camera crew appeared to reposition equipment.

One important procedural distinction moving forward is that the prosecution and defense are not in the same position when it comes to appealing this ruling. Under New York criminal procedure, prosecutors are allowed to immediately appeal certain pretrial suppression orders before trial begins, meaning the People could potentially challenge Judge Carro’s decision to suppress the McDonald’s backpack search now, rather than waiting for a verdict. The defense, however, generally does not have the same ability to immediately appeal the portions of the ruling they lost. Instead, if Mangione were ultimately convicted, his attorneys would typically raise those suppression issues later on direct appeal after trial.

That asymmetry creates an interesting dynamic following Monday’s ruling. The prosecution retained much of the evidence through the stationhouse inventory search and post-Miranda statements. Because of that, it remains unclear whether prosecutors will actually choose to pursue an immediate appeal or simply move forward toward trial with the evidence Judge Carro still allowed them to keep.

Outside the courthouse, a full press podium had already been assembled for what many believed would be a defense press conference. News outlets had attached their branded microphones to the podium and stood waiting with cameras aimed forward. We waited nearly twenty minutes before one of the unofficial line organizers—the very Australian who blessed me with my #24 wristband—approached and informed the crowd that the defense team had already left, and the press conference would not happen.

That lingered with me.

This person doesn’t work for the court, isn’t a lawyer or a member of the press, and isn’t on the defense team in any capacity. Yet somehow he knew the defense team had departed before the assembled press corps did. Within minutes of his announcement, reporters slowly began dismantling their microphones one by one, apparently accepting that the information was accurate.

It was another reminder that an entire parallel ecosystem has now formed around this case. Not merely supporters and detractors, but organizers, recurring personalities, independent journalists, livestreamers, line coordinators, amateur legal analysts, social media figures, and unofficial intermediaries who appear to possess their own channels of communication orbiting the courthouse.

While mainstream media and tabloids alike continue to push the narrative that the only people who care about this case are deranged fangirls and violent extremists, that does not describe the majority of the human beings I have met while covering this case. Don’t get me wrong—there are a handful of deranged fangirls and violent extremists.

But there’s also the guy from New Jersey who told me he doesn’t sleep at all “these days.” He’s not sure if it’s general anxiety, or existential dread, or the financial stress of his educational debt. Or just the current state of the world. He’s young and, other than the not sleeping, is in good health. Well, as far as he knows. He hasn’t been to the doctor in a while for a check up; not since he lost his free student health insurance. It was no problem for him to leave Jersey by 4am because he was up anyway. He figured, he could scroll his phone and watch the hearing updates on TikTok, or leave his apartment and come see in person.

There was also a young woman I recognized from the first hearing I attended. When she stepped away from the line to smoke where it wouldn’t bother anyone, I followed her, desperate to light my one emergency cigarette with her lighter instead of my useless matches. As she lit it for me, she told me she remembered me and asked where I stay when I come in from Los Angeles. When I mentioned taking an Uber this time to avoid risking delayed trains, she laughed and said she could never afford that, then immediately offered me her couch anytime I returned for a hearing. She couldn’t afford an Uber, but she offered a stranger a place to stay for free.

Which brings us back to the question of why this case continues to attract such obsessive attention in the public consciousness. Because for many people standing outside Manhattan Criminal Court Monday morning, the case is about so much more than Luigi Mangione and what he did or didn’t do.

As that cameraman put it: “Everyone’s got a story.”

Subscribe now

Share

What I have no interest in doing is subjecting you all to an entire essay explaining or justifying my break. It suffices to say that I am still evaluating the best way to engage with this platform, but while I do that, I’m going to at the very least keep my readers up to date as the Mangione case continues to unfold. So without further adieu, allow me to start again here: with the latest Mangione trial updates, along with some information about what my future trial coverage may look like, and some emerging patterns I’ve noticed.

New York State Trial

The NY state trial has been adjourned to September 8, 2026. The order from Judge Gregory Carro states simply that the trial will begin on September 8, 2026, instead of the previously scheduled date of June 8, 2026. It does not specify when jury selection will begin, but that typically takes place about 3-4 weeks before the trial start date.

On a personal note, this delay is a huge relief for me, and I was actively praying for it to get adjourned beyond June. I would not have been able to mentally or financially handle the trial coverage in early June (to be fair, I’m still not entirely sure how I’ll do it in September, but it will not be a total impossibility like June was).

By a lovely twist of fate in the form of my best friend’s Baby Shower, I will be in NYC for the next state hearing, and will attempt to make it inside. If I’m not able to get in, I will nevertheless be at the courthouse and cover it from the outside. Either way, I’ll be filming and doing some street interviews that I’ll be posting here excllusively. I’ve been very hesitant to test out the “Live” and video features on Substack, but I think this will be a great opportunity to finally give them a shot.

You can read the Order for yourself here: State Trial Orders for New Trial Date

U.S. Federal Trial

On the federal side, jury selection is currently scheduled to begin January 5, 2027, with trial set to run from January 25, 2027 through February 12, 2027. This is, of course, if there are no further adjournments—which, frankly, would be a surprise for me.

In a significant development, this is no longer a capital punishment case. The death penalty was formally taken off the table on January 30, 2026, when when U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett granted Mangione’s defense attorneys’ motion to remove Counts Three and Four from the four-count federal indictment. I’ll post a more in-depth legal analysis of this in a separate article, but the key thing is that both Counts Three and Four were firearm charges that were explicitly tied to the stalking charges in Counts One and Two.

The removal of Counts Three and Four was and remains a huge blow to the prosecution, as they were the aggravated charges that allowed the death penalty to be sought. Without them, this is no longer a capital case, which fundamentally changes the posture of the defense. As a result, “learned counsel” Avraham Moskowitz, who had been appointed as a death penalty expert, is no longer necessary. Mangione’s defense team has already requested that he be relieved.

January 30, 2026 Opinion and Order Removing Death Penalty

April 27, 2026 Letter Stating Continued Involvement of Avraham Moskowitz is Not Necessary

My Continued Trial Coverage

I want to be candid about something that overlaps with all of this: covering this case has already cost me a small fortune.

Up to this point, I have attended hearings in person whenever possible—flying to New York, arranging logistics, and when I couldn’t be there myself, employing a journalism student to attend in my place. That doesn’t include the cost of line sitters, which anyone who has followed high-profile proceedings in Manhattan knows is the only way to reliably secure entry.

I have not made any money on this. The work I did covering the Mangione case for House In Habit allowed me to break even at best. We are no longer working together, and as I look ahead to full trial coverage, the financial reality becomes much harder to ignore. Recent estimates from my line sitters to cover both the state and federal trials in their entirety are upwards of $30,000. Yes, you read that right. I nearly had a heart attack when I was texted the estimates. I was even told that other line sitters are charging much more, and that this was basically a courtesy rate to me.

That number forces a real reassessment when it comes to the feasibility of me (or someone in my employ) making it inside the courtroom every day of both trials. I’m currently in the process of applying for press credentials, and am hopeful that I will be approved before the September state trial begins. That would change everything in terms of access. But even with a press pass, there are still significant logistical challenges.

I have an active legal practice in Los Angeles. While many of my appearances can be handled remotely, not all of them can. The time difference between New York and Los Angeles adds another layer of complication, especially if something in one of my cases is scheduled during trial hours on the East Coast. On top of all of that, my husband and I are trying to conceive, which makes my ovulation windows major scheduling priorities (words a younger me never thought I’d say, let alone type!).

So, I am working on piecing together something workable. However, the reality is that it may not be possible for me to be physically present for the entirety of both trials. Still, my ultimate goal has not changed.

I am working toward a completed manuscript at the conclusion of both trials that tells the story of Luigi Mangione, the crime he stands accused of, the unprecedented dual trials, and the impact on American society & culture in a way that no one else can or will. It is important to me that this account reflects the case as it actually unfolds, with the benefit of time, context, and full access to the record. That is not something that can be done in real time, and it requires seeing the entire process through from beginning to end.

Based on everything this case has shown me so far, this is going to be anything but straightforward. There will be delays. There will be unexpected turns. I would not be surprised in the slightest to see at least one of these trial dates move again.

Rest assured that I will be covering all of it—whether in person with my fresh press pass (::praying hands emoji::), or hunched over my laptop in LA, pouring over courtroom transcripts.

A Broader Pattern Worth Watching

Beyond this case, there is a broader pattern that I cannot ignore.

Since the Mangione case, there have been multiple additional shootings and high-profile killings where federal prosecutors have now stated the accused perpetrators used written messages on bullets. The most notable example of this being the Charlie Kirk case, but there are at least two others, which I will be discussing in another article.

Mangione appears to be the first instance where this specific method was used in a way that captured national attention. At minimum, it suggests imitation. At worst, it suggests something more coordinated, and intentional enough to function as a kind of “calling card.” I’m not interested in dismissing that pattern simply because it’s uncomfortable to consider. It’s part of the story now, whether the mainstream press chooses to engage with it or not.

There are also emerging reports that the individual accused of starting the Palisades fire may have been influenced by or fixated on the Mangione case. If accurate, that would represent a more direct form of spillover from this case into unrelated acts, and it raises additional questions about how these narratives take hold.

My approach to this case remains consistent. I am focused on documenting what actually happens, staying anchored in the filings and the record, and analyzing developments as they arise without concern for filtering anything through a predetermined narrative. That includes paying attention to information and patterns outside of the four walls of this case that nevertheless contribute to understanding the full picture.

One thing I am certain of: there will forever be a pre- and post- Luigi Mangione in American jurisprudence and popular culture.

The murder of Brian Thompson, United Healthcare CEO, on that Manhattan sidewalk right outside the Midtown Hilton as he was about to give a presentation to shareholders, was not the first time someone had been shot and killed in New York City. Sadly, that is not a rare occurrence in any city in America anymore. At first, the early reports coming out of NYC news outlets, were just that a man had been shot dead outside the hotel. But as details emerged about his identity, something happened.

Once Americans realized he was the head of one of the most despised health insurance companies, a millionaire who had gotten rich from his ruthless corporate practices (like introducing an AI system for claims that resulted in over a 90% denial and made it nearly impossible to appeal or even speak to a real human being about your health) he stopped being a victim that the majority of Americans could empathize with. I think it’s also worth noting that the shareholder meeting Thompson was there to present at, continued on without him while his body was still on the sidewalk. They just used a different entrance to the hotel

It also appeared that the person who shot him had not robbed him, but rather had targeted Thompson, and escaped in a completely unbelievable fashion—something right out of a movie or Law & Order episode. Before even the first pictures of the assassin were released, or the video camera footage of the attack came out, the tide of public opinion had already turned against Thompson. My texts and DMs were full from friends all over the country, with memes and jokes about sending Thompson their “thoughts and prayers,” and saying things like, “out of network, claim denied.”

While the news told us that a manhunt was underway to catch the killer, the American middle and working class were rooting for his escape. There was the feeling that street justice had finally come to one of the evil, corporate overlords, and that whoever was responsible was a hero who did what so many have fantasized about doing. One of the rich, “untouchables” who was responsible for incalculable pain, suffering, and harm to poor and middle class people, had finally gotten what they deserved.

Then the grainy security footage hit the news outlets of the masked, gloved assassin dressed in black, wearing a backpack, calmly and cooly firing what appeared to be 3 rounds into Thompson’s back, then just as calmly leaving the scene…without dropping the gun. The entire internet was on fire with speculation, and in real life, I was texting back and forth with at least 10 people all day long, exchanging theories. The crime and surveillance footage begged a few obvious questions: Was it a professional hitman? Was it a vigilante who had experienced personal pain, suffering, or loss at he hands of a corrupt and inhuman healthcare system?

In the security video of the shooting, the person appears calm, even when his gun appears to jam. Without being frazzled or rushed, the person quickly clears the jam and fires again. The gun appears to have a silencer. To me, it seemed obvious that this was either a professional hitman, or someone who at the very least had trained extensively for this. But many on the internet disagreed. The opinions and hot takes coming out differed widely by political affiliation and class. I remember Jack Posobiec, an ultra-conservative MAGA media personality who is also former Naval intelligence (insert eye roll), vehemently arguing that it was obviously NOT a professional, just some idiot who clearly didn’t know what he was doing, an assertion he based on the fact that the gun seems to have jammed.

But to me (and many others), the premeditated and perfectly executed nature of the crime—not to mention Thompson’s dead body with three bullet holes—indicated the person knew exactly what he was doing. And no matter how hard the news media machine tried to tell us that this was a heinous crime that had taken the life of a husband and father, the public opinion of the Average American had been formed: Justice had been served.

For everyone who had ever suffered with a condition that was treatable yet been denied the treatment, for everyone who had ever fought tooth & nail with an insurance company to give their child the medicine they needed, for everyone who had ever had to choose between groceries and affording their prescription medication, for everyone who had ever been consumed by medical debt incurred to save their life or the life of someone they loved, for everyone who had ever watched their beloveds die in pain after multiple claim denials for interventions that could have saved them or at the very least eased their pain…for them and everyone like them, Brian Thompson had simply reaped what he had sowed.

On this day last year, way before we had any real idea of the true motive (what if his wife had him killed?), the modern-day ‘Robin Hood’ assassin angle had already been accepted. Then, the ever increasingly bizarre details began to emerge. The gun may have been a 3D printed ‘ghost gun.’ The suspect escaped on a CitiBike he rode through Central Park, before ditching it and getting in a cab to George Washington Bus station. And the most striking and enduring detail: the bullets had been ‘etched’ with three words: Deny, Defend, Depose.

As the nation watched this ‘manhunt’ unfold, the first photographs of the suspect came out. Masked, in the Starbucks across the street from the Midtown Hilton where the crime took place. Masked, in a taxi cab, with prominent eyebrows. The only picture of his face without a mask, we were told, was the one of him checking into his hostel, where they asked him to lower his mask to check his ID (which was a fake ID, begging the question of how he produced such a high quality fake ID or where he obtained it). And once the world saw his face, it was a wrap. He was the worst thing a murder suspect could be in terms of a law enforcement or state media perspective: incredibly good looking.

Almost immediately, before the suspect we now know as Luigi Mangione was even caught or named, a Legal Defense Fund was launched on his behalf on GiveSendGo by a group calling themselves ‘The December 4th Legal Committee.” It quickly racked up thousands and thousands of dollars, and the donations grew exponentially once he was arrested on December 9th, when his identity was revealed. That same legal fund has now raised over one million dollars from supporters, who overwhelmingly view Brian Thompson’s murder as a revolutionary shot fired—literally and figuratively—in America’s class war between those who can afford healthcare, and those who can’t. For some reason it doesn’t seem to bother his supporters that he is from a ridiculously wealthy family who does not need any assistance paying legal bills—but that’s another article.

Today, on the one year anniversary of what will surely be The Crime of the Century, The Trial of the Century is underway. The People of New York v. Luigi Mangione has become a symbol of every major problem facing our country today, in addition to being a complete spectacle of legal and political theatre the likes of which we have never before seen.

When I flew to NYC early this year for his first public appearance at the NY State pretrial hearing after his arraignment, I got in line at 3am for his slated 2pm hearing. I was one of only 19 members of the public who made it into the courtroom, and by 12pm it was a madhouse. It had become clear by 8am that there was no way most of the people in line would be getting inside, yet the people continued to line up.

I admit I took great joy in watching so many attorneys show up between 10 and 12pm, thinking they could finagle their way into the courtroom by saying they were a lawyer or there for work, only to be told by the security guards that, and I quote, “nobody gives a shit if you’re a lawyer.” The schaudenfreud I experienced at watching their faces drop looking at the line that was over 100 people deep by that point, is a feeling I will cherish forever.

Because I live in Los Angeles and am a practicing attorney with clients and a court schedule of my own, it has not been possible for me to fly to NYC personally for every hearing, as I would prefer to do. However, either myself or someone I send as a proxy for me, have successfully made it inside the courtroom as one of only 19-24 members of the public for every single state and federal hearing to this day. I cannot tell you the small fortune I have spent covering this trial, between flights and hotels to New York and paying line sitters to ensure a spot inside. Every hearing has become more of a circus than the last, with more people getting in line earlier and earlier, and more chaotic and unbelievable every time.

In February, getting in line at 3am for a 2pm hearing got me inside. For this week’s hearing—which is a full evidentiary hearing with the prosecution’s evidence being presented for the first time that will last through tomorrow and possibly go into next week—Mangione’s overwhelmingly young, female supporters began camping out Saturday night for a 9am Monday hearing. By 9am Sunday, November 30th, there were already over 24 people in the public line, a number that represents the absolute cutoff point for how many members of the public will be let inside. The colder it gets, the number goes down, because bulky winter coats take up more space in the courtroom benches and allow less people to be seated.

My amazing and hilarious line sitter, Aaron, calls these women the “Luigi Lasses,” which I love and have adopted as my preferred term for them. When he got there Sunday morning, he texted me that people had been camping out in tents since Saturday, and that it was not even a “line,” but rather a full blown campsite. This reality could literally be smelled in the women’s bathroom of the courthouse, which was filled with an overwhelmingly potent scent of BO and urine, a testament to the fact that so many women literally did not shower for 3 days and were living out of tents on the street for the chance to get inside. I’m not sure who’s crazier, them or me for paying a line sitter for 38 hours.

To say that I’ve encountered some interesting characters over the course of my venture into legal journalism to cover this trial, would be a colossal understatement. At the first hearing I attended in February, no one was yet prepared for the unprecedented public turnout. We were on our own, fending for ourselves, fighting off the most audacious line-cutters, with nothing but an honor system in place. Everyone in the first 20 people in line became fast allies, realizing we had to have each other’s back for bathroom breaks, all of us took turns telling the would-be cutters to F off.

When straight up audacity didn’t work, the sob stories started. My favorite was an individual who started with the very front of the line and gradually worked their way back, telling everyone that they and their cousin had flown here all the way from California, begging us to cut in front of us. We could all hear them, and see the looks on the people’s faces. Many people are not comfortable with confrontation—thankfully I am not one of those people. When they finally got to me, it was my great joy to inform them that I, too, had flown in from California, so had the woman next to me, and they had some nerve thinking that any one of us could give permission for them to cut every other person in line.

Since then, the public line system has somehow gotten both more sophisticated and more chaotic at the same time. Now, there is a woman who has become known as ‘the linemistress’ to those of us who keep attending every hearing. The linemistress somehow manages to get there first, no matter what, and then controls the strict number system that has thankfully replaced the honor system, which is of course useless in an environment where very few people possess honor. There is also now a group of about 10-15 people who appear (to me) to know each other and be coordinating with both the linemistress and the organizers of Mangione’s legal defense fund, to somehow always get there before anyone else, no matter how early people show up.

The numbering system that the linemistress and her companions appear to control does help, and gets more innovative each time. For the hearing in September, they were writing numbers in permanent marker on people’s hands. For this hearing, it evolved into bright green wristbands with numbers on them, that read “WE ARE WITH LUIGI” and had his face on them. For this hearing, even with 38 hours in line, we were number 27, 3 short of getting let inside for the first day on Monday, but number 3 in line for Tuesday.

This ended up being a blessing in disguise, in my opinion, because they ended up having serious technical difficulties on Monday getting the courtroom screens to work, resulting in nearly half the entire day wasted, with the courtroom galley forced to sit in silence as they troubleshooted the issue for over 2 hours. On Tuesday, members of the press who had been there Monday, were overheard talking about what a waste Monday was and how confusing it was once they finally got the screens working.

At the federal hearing in April, one of the defense fund organizers named Jamie Peck, blatantly cut the line of people who had been waiting for 24+ hours, and appeared to do so with the help and approval of the linemistress at the front. When people complained, her response was “you’d think raising $1 million for his legal defense would get me an approved fast pass.” Which honestly, is a fair point. I have many of my own suspicions and conspiracy theories about the true nature of the legal fund, its organizers, and this group of people, but that, too, is for another article.

What has consistently stood out to me as the most extraordinarily unbelievable aspect of the prosecution’s narrative that we are being asked to accept, is that the same person who we are told painstakingly planned and prepared for this crime for months, who allegedly arrived in Manhattan on November 24th and spent ten days scoping out the hotel and strategizing his every move, who somehow had the ability to either assemble, procure, or 3D print a functioning ‘ghost gun’ and silencer, who etched 3 words on 3 bullets and escaped on a Citibike, evading law enforcement for five days, could possibly have been stupid enough to have all of the evidence tying him to the crime—including a GD ‘manifesto’—all in the same bag, on his person, at the time of his arrest at that McDonald’s in Altoona, PA.

It’s difficult for my mind to comprehend the apparent genius level of the planning and execution of the crime, devolved so quickly into an equally incomprehensible level of stupidity as soon as the crime was committed. From a legal standpoint, the prosecution’s narrative asks us to accept a level of brilliance in the planning, and a level of incompetence in the aftermath, that do not comfortably coexist. Much of my own theories that I’ve written about this last year covering the trial, center around these kinds of logical problems with the government’s narrative.

Since Mangione’s arrest, the public has been demanding to see the body cam footage from the McDonald’s that day. His defense team, including Thomas Dickey for the Pennsylvania case and Karen Friedman Agnifilo (KFA) for the NY state and federal cases, have been trying to get all of the evidence from the backpack searched during the arrest tossed out from the moment they began representing him. Both attorneys have filed extensive motions claiming Mangione was never read his Miranda rights, and that the bag was illegally searched before he had been officially detained or arrested, outside of his presence.

With this week’s evidentiary hearing, the body cam footage is finally being shown. On Monday, even after the technical issues were resolved, there seemed to be a great deal of confusion about what exactly was being shown and for what purpose it was being shown. Tuesday, however, proved to be much smoother and more illuminating.

The court was shown the same 45 minutes of from three different angles, taken from three different officers’ body cams, from when police first entered the McDonald’s on December 9th, 2024, approached Mangione, questioned, and eventually arrested him. This is the footage the world, and myself, have been dying to see. It’s why I paid a line sitter to wait 38 hours in line ahead of time to make sure I got inside. Like Mangione’s legal team, I have many questions about the bag of evidence, where it was when it was searched, if it was on him or had been taken from the bus before entering the McDonald’s, and of course, the Miranda rights.

Before I continue sharing the contents of the footage, I want to note that Luigi’s handcuffs were removed for this hearing. As you likely recall, the issue of him being shackled during the hearings has been repeatedly raised by his defense team, who made multiple requests at past hearings for him to be unshackled. At the state hearing in February of this year, he was shackled hand and foot, and Judge Carro denied KFA’s request for those to be removed, citing “security concerns.” At every state hearing until this week, he has been handcuffed, although they did remove his handcuffs for the last federal hearing in April. This was the first state hearing for which the handcuffs were completely removed for the entirety of the hearing.

The body cam footage was played, then almost immediately paused while the first and only witness for the day, Officer Joseph Detwiler, explained that for “some reason,” there is no audio for the first minute of the footage. Being me, this makes me wonder what was being said during that minute between the officers. One of the big problems with body cam footage, is that its in the complete control of the police. There’s no way to ever know if the audio truly malfunctioned for the first minute, or if it’s been muted or altered.

The video resumed, and showed Officer Detwiler and another Officer identified as Officer Frye, making a pass through the McDonald’s without stopping or speaking to Mangione. Suddenly, the audio comes on, and Christmas music can be heard playing in the background. Mangione can be seen at a corner table in the back near the bathrooms, wearing a mask and orange beanie. When questioned about why they did this, Detwiler stated that “it was to see what he did when he saw us.”

Notably, there is something that can only vaguely be seen at Mangione’s feet, that is dark and looks like it could be a bag. There is no other angle from any of the other two body cams where anything that could be a bag is seen again. However, further into the footage, once officers approach and begin to question Mangione, he does refer to his ID being in his “backpack,” after giving officers the fake name of “Mark Rosario,” which is of course the name on the fake ID that was used to check into the hostel in Manhattan. What’s so fascinating to me about this exchange, is how Mangione calmly answers the officers’ questions without any hesitation as soon as they approach him.

If I were evading the police after committing a murder, knew there was a manhunt underway for me, and I had stopped to eat in a McDonald’s, was wearing a face mask and beanie, eating my food & not bothering anyone, and two police officers approached me out of nowhere asking for my name without saying anything else, my instinct would not be to provide the fake name I knew I had used at the hostel with zero hesitation. They literally just walk up to his table, and the first words out of Detwiler’s mouth are “What’s your name?” Mangione calmly and instantly replies with the fake name he knows police have from the hostel.

This is so strange to me, because when most people are approached by a police officer and asked their name, even normal people who have done nothing wrong, would typically respond by asking what the problem is first, or why they are being asked for their name. But Mangione doesn’t even flinch, flatly giving the name of Mark Rosario.

Perhaps most bizarrely, as Detwiler and Frye continue to question him, all without him being detained, he answers all their questions without ever asking why they are questioning him, all while he continues to eat his food. As the officers question him about whether he’s originally from New Jersey or not, he answers telling them he’s from the “DMV,” and explains that means “Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia,” as he emotionlessly unwraps another menu item and eats it. As he eats, Detwiler is whistling “Jingle Bell Rock,” before he asks Mangione if what he’s eating is the steak. Mangione makes the noise of “mmhhmmm” while chewing, and Detwiler tells him that’s his favorite menu item. I personally had no idea that McDonald’s has steak until this hearing, I may have been equally blown away by that revelation as by how peculiar the entire interaction between them is for the duration of the encounter through the eventual arrest.

When the officers finally ask him to stand and be frisked, he still has not once asked what the problem is, why they are talking to him, if he is being detained, etc.—nothing. As they frisk him and search his pockets, “Walking in a Winter Wonderland” plays over the McDonald’s speakers, while Mangione stands emotionless. After the stalling by officers to allow backup to arrive, by the time he’s finally handcuffed, “I’ll Be Home for Christmas” blares as they cuff him and lead him outside to the police car. He would not, in fact, be home for Christmas. He spent that Christmas in federal prison, just as he will spend this Christmas.

Here’s the real bombshell from the footage: Mere moments after exchanging small talk about their mutual love of McDonald’s steak, Detwiler tells Mangione that he knows the Mark Rosario ID is fake, and asks him why he lied to him, to which Mangione cooly replies “I clearly shouldn’t have.” He then volunteers that it was simply the fake ID he had in his wallet. It’s after this that Detwiler reads him his Miranda rights, prior to being frisked or arrested, as he sat and ate in the McDonald’s booth.

I’ve seen so much false information online claiming that the police never read him his Miranda rights, which was proven false with this footage on Tuesday. However, legally speaking, this does not mean that there’s not still plenty of technical and procedural issues that KFA and team can raise about the timing of when the Miranda rights were read, and whether he had actually been detained yet or not.

In fact, when KFA cross examined Detwiler, she had a lot of questions about the way in which the officers were standing, implying that they were detaining him without him being told he was being detained. When Detwiler claimed he did not stand in a way to intentionally block Mangione, KFA pressed him and said that he and Frye had “strategically placed themselves in a position to not allow him to leave.”

Readers who have been following the case closely may remember that there were initial reports by the arresting officers that Luigi had a laptop on him at the McDonalds. There were even conflicting statements in the arrest report, where Detwiler even claimed that Luigi was on the laptop when they approached him. That is clearly untrue from the footage shown Tuesday, there was no laptop anywhere on the table or inside of Luigi’s bag. When KFA questioned Detwiler about this, she stated that she never saw a laptop in the footage, and he admits that he had previously stated that “he was on a laptop, that is true.” No laptop was visible at any point, anywhere, from any of the 3 angles.

There is also a part of the footage when backup officers have arrived on scene, when the officers can all be heard whispering to themselves that “that’s definitely him” and “that’s the guy who checked into the hostel with that ID,” when a blonde female officer looks at Officer Frye with a wide smile, then began to say something, before looking directly into the body cam, and stopping. The audio is then turned off for a few moments while Detwiler and Frye converse with the other officers. Shortly after that, Detwiler turns the camera completely off. The camera then “reboots” a few moments later, and is covered for a brief period. Then, after Mangione is arrested, as they escort him to the police car, Detwiler mutes his camera.

During the prosecution’s direct examination, Detwiler stated that it was “standard” to mute themselves during “strategizing.” On cross, KFA references the moment when the blonde officer noticed the camera, but it was more of a statement than a question, and as such no response was given by Detwiler. KFA did not rephrase it as a question, instead moving on to point out that Detwiler was made an honorary NYPD officer as a result of the arrest, which she asks him if he is “proud of.” Detwiler responded in the affirmative that he was proud, prompting KFA to say that he posted about it on Facebook. This resulted in the biggest laugh from the entire gallery of the day, when Detwiler responded “No I didn’t, my wife did.”

KFA also asked some questions about what appeared to be a distortion in some of the body cam footage, where the straight, flat walls of the McDonald’s appear to be curved and look strange. Detwiler stated that is was simply the angle that was causing the distortion, and KFA did not press further at that time. It does seem clear to me that Luigi’s defense team is trying to lay the groundwork for claiming the body cam footage has been tampered with or edited in some way, although she is being careful not to outright say that…yet.

Readers will be happy to hear that all of this information is exclusive only to anyone who was able to get inside the courtroom, as both the defense and prosecution made a joint motion to seal all video evidence until the trial—which Judge Carro granted. No one, not even the press, will be able to see the video again until the trial. Judge Carro was careful to explain that the sealing is “temporary and procedural, not a commentary on the admissibility or relevance of the footage.”

In the perfect cap off to the all-day hearing, which ended at around 5:40pm, a female reporter from Bloomberg in the press section abruptly stood up while Judge Carro was mid-sentence, to challenge to sealing order, loudly declaring that it violates free press rights. Officers yelled at her to sit down or be escorted out. She chose the latter by refusing to sit or shut up, screaming “I’ll call my lawyer!” as she was escorted out. Even Luigi looked shocked by this turn of events.

If there has ever been a more perfect snapshot of modern America—a handsome alleged assassin, a dead healthcare CEO, a million-dollar legal fund, twenty-four golden public seats, a McDonald’s Christmas soundtrack, and a Bloomberg reporter being dragged out of a courtroom promising to get her own lawyer involved—I haven’t seen it.

This time last year, the entire country was consumed by the manhunt for Mangione. Now he’s sitting in court for the pretrial evidentiary hearing, and the path between those two moments has been quite a ride. We’re not even at the trial yet, so buckle up because it’s only going to get crazier.

Share

Thank you for reading and subscribing! I’m going to be going through all of my notes from every hearing this year and curating some content for all subscribers, including special access to some raw notes and footage I filmed in New York for paid subscribers. I’ve been behind on writing here on Substack due to an intense work schedule with everything going on with immigration law, but wanted to make sure to give you all the inside scoop for the evidentiary hearing happening this week.

Subscribe now

Within the last six months or so, I’ve made a sincere effort to understand many Catholic prayers and rituals more fully, this time approaching them with an open heart (rather than the hardened heart with which I judged them in my youth). Without the core message and Love of Jesus, the prayers and rituals hold no real meaning. They just seem like mindless chants when you don’t believe in a God that hears your prayers, or a Savior who you can communicate with, who can communicate with you best when you are in a state of sincere, meditative prayer.

When I began my journey to re-learn parts of my faith that had been forgotten, the Rosary was at the top of my list of religious practices that I wanted to master—not merely in the intellectual sense of correctly memorizing it, but in the spiritual sense of benefiting from its full power. I wanted to actually experience being enriched by the Holy Spirit through the thoughtful meditation and reflection required by the Rosary.

I was a bit shocked to find that there was no one, easy “How To” guide out there, and that praying the Rosary correctly was much more complicated than I imagined. Rather than being stagnant and staying the same every day, it changes according to the Liturgical Calendar and day of the week. At one point, it required two different Bibles + five separate tabs open on my laptop, for me to be able to get through the Rosary.

Because of this experience, I’ve been working on a guide to praying the Rosary that has everything in one place, for each day of the week, according to the Liturgical calendar. I want people to be able to pick it up, flip to any day of the year, and just follow what it says on that page, without having to look anything up or reference any other sources.

I thought that today, The Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, would be a great day to share an excerpt and example from my Rosary Guide (I’ll have one for 2026 and 2027). With current world events, so many people are feeling powerless and hopeless. But you are powerful beyond measure! You are a child of God, made in His image, and He hears all prayers that are prayed with sincerity and faith in your heart.

Praying the Rosary has helped me tremendously, especially when I am experiencing anxiety and begin to feel myself spiraling. Instead of reaching for my anxiety medication or getting angry with myself, I take a deep breath, and remind myself to give my anxieties up to God, then come to Him in prayer with Thanksgiving in my heart.

Have no anxiety at all,

But in everything, by prayer and petition,

With Thanksgiving,

Make your requests known to God.

Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding

Will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 4:6-7

Without further adieu, if you’re so inclined and have some time for self-care of the highest order—grab your Rosary, dust it off, and follow along below.

June 24, 2025: The Nativity of St. John the Baptist

Start with the Cross/Crucifix, or whichever bead is in that place (some rosaries feature squares or circles depicting images on them rather than actually being in the shape of a Cross or Crucifix). No matter the style, either it will be in the physical shape of a Cross, or depict an image with the Cross, and it is the first, lowest bead.

Hold the Cross, and:

1) Bless yourself—In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;

Then,

2) Say: Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

Then,

3) Move to the next bead directly above the Cross, and

4) Say: The Our Father

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Amen.

Then,

5) Move to the next bead, it will be the first in a set of three,

6) For all three beads—Say: Hail Mary (one Hail Mary per bead, three total)

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

Then,

7) Before moving on to the next bead, during the space between the last bead you just did (Hail Mary) and the next large bead (the Announcement of the First Decade and Our Father)—Say: Glory Be

Glory be to the Father
and to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning
is now, and ever shall be
world without end.

Amen.

Then,

8) Move to the next large bead, it is the beginning of the First Decade or set of 10. Announce the First Decade or Mystery. It is currently Ordinary Time in the litugrical calendar, however today is a Solemnity: the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist. This is one of the highest-ranking feast days for the Catholic Church. On typical Tuesdays that are not Feast Days, we pray the Sorrowful Mysteries.

However, on a Solemnity such as today, the Feast Day adaptation is to pray the Joyful Mysteries, in honor of the birth of St. John the Baptist.

As such, on this bead, announce the first of the Joyful Mysteries—

Say: The Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she will conceive by the Holy Spirit and bear the Son of God. (Found in Luke 1:26–38; it is not required that you go to the verse and read it as a prayer, but this is certainly optional and helpful if it’s been a while and you want to familiarize yourself with the Scripture. I’ve provided it below, so everything is in one place.)

26 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,

27 to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.

28 And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

29 But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.

30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.

32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,

33 and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

34 But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”

35 And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

36 And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren;

37 for nothing will be impossible for God.”

38 Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.

Optional Reflection/Intention—If desired, before moving on to the next bead, reflect on the Annunciation and the scripture in which it appears, Luke 1:26-38. Pray for a heart that, like Mary’s, says “yes” to God’s will, even when it’s mysterious or difficult. Reflect on how Saint John the Baptist’s own conception was foretold by an angel, and how all life is sacred and known by God before birth.

Then,

9) Still on the same bead, before moving on to the next, say: Our Father

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Amen.

Then,

Skip the next large bead that connects the main strand of the Rosary beads together, that is the last bead that you do at the end.

Go to the first regular bead to the left, it should be the same size as the 3 beads that you prayed the Hail Marys on previously. There should be 10 of these beads in a row, they represent the first decade.

10) For each of these 10 beads—Say: Hail Mary

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

Then,

Before the next large bead, during the space between the last Hail Mary and the next large bead (the Announcement of the Second Decade),

11) Say: Glory Be

Glory be to the Father
and to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning
is now, and ever shall be
world without end.

Amen.

and

12) Fatima Prayer

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins,
save us from the fires of hell,
and lead all souls to Heaven,
especially those in most need of Thy mercy.
Amen.

Then,

13) Move on to the next large bead, it is the beginning of the Second Decade. Announce the Second Decade or Mystery. Again, because of today’s feast day, we are praying the Joyful Mysteries rather than the Sorrowful Mysteries.

Say: The Visitation, when Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth, who is pregnant with John the Baptist. John leaps in Elizabeth’s womb at the presence of Jesus. (Found in Luke 1:39–56, and provided below for reference.)

39 During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah,

40 where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.

41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,

42 cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.

43 And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

44 For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.

45 Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”

46 And Mary said:

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;

47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior.

48 For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;

behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.

49 The Mighty One has done great things for me,

and holy is his name.

50 His mercy is from age to age

to those who fear him.

51 He has shown might with his arm,

dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.

52 He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones

but lifted up the lowly.

53 The hungry he has filled with good things;

the rich he has sent away empty.

54 He has helped Israel his servant,

remembering his mercy,

55 according to his promise to our fathers,

to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”

56 Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home.

Optional Reflection/Intention: Give thanks for the gift of friendship, community, and spiritual joy. Pray for expectant mothers and for the recognition of the unborn as bearers of divine purpose. Reflect on the unborn John’s joyful recognition of the unborn Christ.

Then, still on the same large bead that announced the decade, before moving on to the next small bead,

14) Say: Our Father

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Amen.

Then, move on to the next small bead, continuing to the Left, there will be another set of 10 of these sized beads.

15) For each of these 10 beads—Say: Hail Mary

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

Then,

Before the next large bead, during the space between the last Hail Mary and the next large bead (the Announcement of the Third Decade),

16) Say: Glory Be

Glory be to the Father
and to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning
is now, and ever shall be
world without end.

Amen.

and

17) Fatima Prayer

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins,
save us from the fires of hell,
and lead all souls to Heaven,
especially those in most need of Thy mercy.
Amen.

Then,

18) Move on to the next large bead, it is the beginning of the Third Decade. Announce the Third Decade or Mystery. Because of today’s feast day, we are praying the Joyful Mysteries rather than the Sorrowful Mysteries.

Say: The Nativity, when Jesus is born in Bethlehem and laid in a manger. (Found in Luke 2:1–20, and provided below for convenient reference.)

1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled.

2 This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

3 So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.

4 And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,

5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.

6 While they were there, the time came for her to have her child,

7 and she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and keeping the night watch over their flock.

9 The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear.

10 The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.

11 For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.

12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.”

13 And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying:

14 “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

15 When the angels went away from them to heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go, then, to Bethlehem to see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us.”

16 So they went in haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger.

17 When they saw this, they made known the message that had been told them about this child.

18 All who heard it were amazed by what had been told them by the shepherds.

19 And Mary kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.

20 Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, just as it had been told to them.

Optional Reflection/Intention: Though we celebrate John’s birth today, we remember that John was born to prepare the way for Jesus. Pray for humility and the ability to point others toward Christ. Ask God to raise up modern-day prophets who speak truth boldly yet prepare hearts gently.

Then, still on the same large bead that announced the decade, before moving on to the next small bead,

19) Say: Our Father

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Amen.

Then, move on to the next small bead, there will be another set of 10 of these sized beads.

20) For each of these 10 beads—Say: Hail Mary

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

Then,

Before the next large bead, during the space between the last Hail Mary and the next large bead (the Announcement of the Fourth Decade),

21) Say: Glory Be

Glory be to the Father
and to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning
is now, and ever shall be
world without end.

Amen.

and

22) Fatima Prayer

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins,
save us from the fires of hell,
and lead all souls to Heaven,
especially those in most need of Thy mercy.
Amen.

Then,

23) Move on to the next large bead, it is the beginning of the Fourth Decade. Announce the Fourth Decade or Mystery. Because of today’s feast day, we are praying the Joyful Mysteries rather than the Sorrowful Mysteries.

Say: The Presentation in the Temple, when Mary and Joseph present Jesus in the temple, where Simeon and Anna recognize Him as the Messiah. (Found in Luke 2:22–38, and provided here for convenient reference.)

22 When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord,

23 just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,”

24 and to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon. This man was righteous and devout, awaiting the consolation of Israel, and the holy Spirit was upon him.

26 It had been revealed to him by the holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Messiah of the Lord.

27 He came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to perform the custom of the law in regard to him,

28 he took him into his arms and blessed God, saying:

29 “Now, Master, you may let your servant go

in peace, according to your word,

30 for my eyes have seen your salvation,

31 which you prepared in sight of all the peoples,

32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,

and glory for your people Israel.”

33 The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him;

34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted

35 (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

36 There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage,

37 and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer.

38 And coming forward at that very time, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem.

Optional Reflection/Intention: Pray for faith to recognize Christ at work in your life. Like Simeon, John the Baptist also recognized Christ as the Lamb of God. Ask for eyes that see beyond appearances and trust in divine timing and revelation.

Then, still on the same large bead that announced the decade, before moving on to the next small bead,

24) Say: Our Father

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Amen.

Then, move on to the next small bead, there will be another set of 10 of these sized beads.

25) For each of these 10 beads—Say: Hail Mary

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

Then,

Before the next large bead, during the space between the last Hail Mary and the next large bead (the Announcement of the Fifth Decade),

26) Say: Glory Be

Glory be to the Father
and to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning
is now, and ever shall be
world without end.

Amen.

and

27) Fatima Prayer

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins,
save us from the fires of hell,
and lead all souls to Heaven,
especially those in most need of Thy mercy.
Amen.

Then,

28) Move on to the next large bead, it is the beginning of the Fifth and final Decade. Announce the Fifth Decade or Mystery. Because of today’s feast day, we are praying the Joyful Mysteries rather than the Sorrowful Mysteries.

Say: The Finding of Jesus in the Temple, when, at age 12, Jesus is found in the temple discussing Scripture with the elders. (Found in Luke 2:41–52, and provided here for convenient reference.)

41 Each year his parents went to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover,

42 and when he was twelve years old, they went up according to festival custom.

43 After they had completed its days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it.

44 Thinking that he was in the caravan, they journeyed for a day and looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances,

45 but not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him.

46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions,

47 and all who heard him were astounded at his understanding and his answers.

48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.”

49 And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”

50 But they did not understand what he said to them.

51 He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

52 And Jesus advanced [in] wisdom and age and favor before God and man.

Optional Reflection/Intention: Pray for children and youth, that they may be drawn to seek truth and grow in wisdom. Reflect on how John the Baptist also grew strong in spirit (Luke 1:80) and was prepared in solitude for his prophetic role. Ask for courage to prepare for your calling.

Then, still on the same large bead that announced the decade, before moving on to the next small bead,

29) Say: Our Father

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Amen.

Then, move on to the next small bead, there will be another set of 10 of these sized beads.

30) For each of these 10 beads—Say: Hail Mary

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

Then,

Before the next large and final bead (that was skipped in the beginning), during the space between the last Hail Mary and the final large bead,

31) Say: Glory Be

Glory be to the Father
and to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning
is now, and ever shall be
world without end.

Amen.

and

32) Fatima Prayer

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins,
save us from the fires of hell,
and lead all souls to Heaven,
especially those in most need of Thy mercy.
Amen.

Then, move on to the final, large bead. This final bead is a sacred one that carries several prayers before completing a full Rosary.

33) Say: Hail, Holy Queen (Salve Regina)

Hail, holy Queen, mother of mercy,
our life, our sweetness, and our hope.
To you we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to you we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn, then, most gracious advocate,
your eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this, our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

Amen.

34) Say: Closing Rosary Pray (O God, Whose…)

O God, whose only-begotten Son, by His life, death and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life, grant, we beseech Thee, that meditating on these mysteries of the most holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain, and obtain what they promise, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

35) Say: Our Father

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Amen.

36) Say: Hail Mary

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

37) Say: Glory Be

Glory be to the Father
and to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning
is now, and ever shall be
world without end.

Amen.

38) Say: Memorare

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession, was left unaided.

Inspired by this confidence I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my Mother.

To thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful.

O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.

Amen.

Then,

39) Bless yourself, and

40) Say: In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

CONGRATULATIONS! I hope that this made it easy and simple to follow along and pray the Rosary today, on the Feast Day of John the Baptist. If you’ve never prayed the Rosary in full before, today would be a wonderful day to try for the first time. It’s okay if it feels like a lot—just follow along, everything is here for you. The only thing you need is Love in your heart, and the willingness to take the first step and start.

Subscribe now

Share

Immigration is one of those rare issues where both sides are equally guilty of erasing nuance, rewriting history, and dehumanizing people based solely on their legal status. This serves the agendas of politicians, media outlets, and ideologues alike. On the left, dehumanization often takes the form of reducing people to their economic utility—liberals repeating the line that “we need them to do the backbreaking jobs no American will do,” implicitly justifying a system that relies on paying them near-slave wages. On the right, it looks like labeling every non-citizen as “illegal,” conflating all immigrants with criminals, and ignoring the many ways a person can enter legally, then fall out of status without committing a single crime.

The immigration crisis we’re in right now is the direct result of policies under Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and now Trump again. But the system has been broken for far longer than that. There is still no real path to citizenship for people who entered the U.S. legally but later lost status—often through no fault of their own, and not because of any criminal conduct. Student and work visas expire, marriages end, asylum claims are denied after years of delays, or people age out of DACA eligibility. The law simply doesn’t provide many avenues for these people, many of whom have lived here for decades. The few avenues that are available to them to correct their status, require a competent immigration attorney and the ability to afford one.

One of the most troubling dynamics I’ve observed is the selective memory people seem to have about what their preferred political party or president actually did in office. There’s a kind of collective amnesia that sets in when “your guy” is in charge. People excuse or minimize egregious policies because they came from their side, while hyper-fixating on the same actions as evil when the other side does it.

President Barack Obama, who was first elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012, oversaw the highest number of deportations of any U.S. president. From 2009 to 2016, his administration deported over 3 million people, earning him the nickname “Deporter-in-Chief” from immigrant rights groups and immigration attorneys. During his second term, particularly in 2014, news broke of children in immigration detention centers—photos of kids in cages and at detention centers that would later resurface under Trump, despite originating under Obama.

When Donald Trump took office in January 2017, he shifted the focus. His administration poured billions into border security and wall construction, rather than continuing Obama’s emphasis on internal deportations. For many immigration attorneys and advocates, this shift seemed like an improvement. Trump campaigned on cracking down on illegal entries, not rounding up the undocumented population already here. Although ICE enforcement remained active under Trump, his emphasis was the southern border and deterring illegal crossings. Between 2017 and 2020, more than 450 miles of the border wall were constructed or reinforced, and a grand total of 720,000 deportations took place, of people who were properly deported according to due process in immigration proceedings.

Then in January 2021, Biden entered office, promptly reversing many of Trump’s policies. He signed executive orders halting border wall construction, rolled back the “Remain in Mexico” policy (officially called “Migrant Protection Protocols”), and drastically reduced interior immigration enforcement. The Biden administration also placed a 100-day moratorium on deportations, and expanded parole programs for certain nationalities. But the unintended result of these shifts was a record-breaking number of border crossings—over 2.7 million encounters in fiscal year 2022, and more than 3 million in 2023. Just take a moment to digest those numbers.

I just told you that throughout his entire Presidency, meaning both terms, President Obama deported just over 3 million people. In his first term, President Trump deported 720,000. In just 2022, there were 2.7 million border crossings, with another 3 million in 2023. That is letting back in all the people who were deported over the previous 12 years combined, plus another 2 million-ish. The problem with these crossings, beyond the sheer number, is that many of the individuals being allowed in were completely unvetted. There were no criminal background checks, no medical screenings, and no verification of vaccination status.

At the same time, American citizens were being subjected to strict COVID-19 mandates, unable to work, travel, or enter public spaces without proof of vaccination, while thousands of migrants were being processed without any such requirements. Many were granted entry through the CBP One app, a mobile application that allowed migrants to schedule appointments at ports of entry to seek parole or asylum. In practice, it functioned as a fast-track system with little oversight. After brief processing, they were bussed from overcrowded detention centers and dropped off in cities across the country, often with no resources, no shelter, and no plan. Cities like New York, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles were completely overwhelmed, with people being bussed or flown in by both Republican and Democratic governors and, eventually, even by federal contractors.

With few resources and little planning, many were dumped in shelters, left homeless, or packed into neighborhoods that couldn’t sustain the influx. And yes—some of those allowed in had criminal backgrounds. The Right has latched onto those stories to justify sweeping enforcement, but the truth is that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants have not committed crimes and did not enter illegally.

Part of the confusion, which is understandable from people who’ve never had to navigate immigration law themselves, is that few understand how a person becomes “undocumented” in the first place. The Right wants you to believe that every undocumented person broke into this country illegally, climbing fences in the dark of night. The Left, on the other hand, often pushes the idea that there’s no such thing as “illegal immigration,” and that everyone here should simply be granted citizenship by virtue of being physically present.

Like most things, the truth lives somewhere in between.

The word “undocumented” is misleading. The only people who are truly undocumented—meaning, unknown to the U.S. government—are those who manage to enter the country completely undetected. This is an extremely small and statistically insignificant group. The overwhelming majority of people without legal status today were, in fact, documented. They either came here legally and overstayed a visa, or they were apprehended at the border, processed, detained, and then released into the care of a sponsor while awaiting a court date. We know their names, we have their photos, and we have addresses for them. You cannot “round up all the illegals” if you don’t even know who or where they are. But the people being targeted in these mass raids are known. They are known because they entered within the confines of our legal system.

There are many legal ways to enter this country that do not confer citizenship. Consider the case of a seasonal agricultural worker who enters on a valid work visa. The employer often promises to handle the legal side—visa renewals, path to permanent residency, etc.—as part of the job offer. The worker, grateful for the opportunity and unfamiliar with the legal bureaucracy, trusts the employer to do what they say. But the employer, motivated by cost-cutting and complacency, fails to follow through. Maybe they never file the renewal paperwork. Maybe they submit it late or incorrectly. Maybe they never intended to help the worker adjust status in the first place. Yet, the worker fulfills their part of the deal. They toil in brutal conditions, for low wages, with the understanding that they are here legally. Years later, they find out they were never properly renewed and are now “illegal.” Whose fault is that?

Or take the case of a student on an F-1 visa. They’ve been granted a 4-year visa to attend a university, and they’re here on a scholarship. If something happens, say, they lose funding, their family can’t continue to support them, or they experience a medical crisis; they may need to withdraw. Logically, they might assume that the visa lasts until the expiration date stamped on it. After all, most things in life work that way. But immigration law doesn’t. Once you’re no longer enrolled at the institution that issued your visa, your status starts to lapse—fast. Unless you enroll in another qualifying institution and get the visa transferred, you fall out of status, often without realizing it until it’s too late. This is not a crime. It’s a bureaucratic misstep that happens all the time.

Now, we’re witnessing a draconian pendulum swing in the opposite direction of Biden’s overly lax policies in the form of a surge in domestic ICE enforcement under Trump’s second administration. What’s most alarming about this round of ICE raids and deportations is how indiscriminate and lawless it has become. ICE agents are now conducting raids without arrest warrants, wearing masks, using unmarked vehicles, and refusing to identify themselves—raiding homes, job sites, and even elementary schools and churches. This should make the hair on every American’s body stand on end. We cannot allow this.

President Trump ran on a promise to prioritize deporting violent criminals and individuals with existing deportation orders. This means people who have lost their asylum cases after being given due process and a trial, or those who have committed serious crimes that constitute deportable offenses. Reasonable people, I think, can agree that this is a valid enforcement priority. But, that is not what’s happening now.

What we’re seeing instead are ICE agents showing up masked, in unmarked vans, without warrants or proper identification, staking out people’s homes and workplaces, and detaining them not because they’re criminals who’ve been ordered deported—but simply because they do not hold U.S. citizenship. This is being done completely devoid of transparency, due process, or oversight.

This was not what anyone voted for. Even many Trump supporters are expressing discomfort, realizing this goes far beyond what was promised. It’s okay to say that. You can support someone and still criticize them when you think they’re wrong. You can even withdraw your support! You can vote for someone and still hold them accountable. If you’re a Trump voter who believed his promises were about safety and lawfulness, not sweeping people off the streets in secret raids, you should be allowed to say that too—because if his own supporters don’t demand accountability, who will he listen to?

I say all this as someone who voted for President Obama twice. There is no world in which I would go back and change my vote. Just because I ended up deeply disappointed in him, doesn’t mean I think John McCain or Mitt Romney would have been any better. On the contrary, I believe they would have been much, much worse. In 2008, Obama was the first president I was old enough to vote for, and I voted for him with so much enthusiasm and hope. I even campaigned for him! I believed he represented change. I truly thought he would lead America into a new, golden age of decency, liberty, and justice for all.

Then came the Big Bank Bailouts. Instead of helping struggling Americans, he bailed out Wall Street. He gave the banking industry a pass—with taxpayer dollars—and no one was held accountable for the massive fraud and theft that destroyed the American middle class. It was a gut punch like nothing I’d ever felt. Still, we all tried to justify it. Everyone said the economy would collapse if the banks weren’t saved. I told myself, McCain wouldn’t have done it better.

Then came the promises of universal healthcare. Again, I bought in, hook, line, and sinker. But the final version of the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, was far from universal. It was a compromise built on private insurance profits, that would eventually be ruled unconstitutional and overturned. I never forgot the lack of consequences for the banks, yet I still naively believed Obama’s second term would be different. He wouldn’t have to placate the right or cater to swing voters anymore, right?

So I voted for him again in 2012. But his second term is when I truly learned the lesson: you cannot put your faith in a politician. That was the term where the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) became his pet project. The TPP was massive corporate trade deal negotiated largely in secret, which would’ve empowered multinational corporations over sovereign governments. That’s when I stopped believing any politician could be trusted to fix a broken system, and stopped looking at individual politicians as the solution.

With the current raids and the escalating situation between Iran & Israel, I’m watching a lot of Trump voters go through the same thing I went through with Obama: feeling betrayed. Trump ran in 2016 and 2024 on bringing peace, avoiding war, and keeping the U.S. out of endless foreign entanglements. But now, under his second administration, the U.S. has backed Israel’s actions in Gaza, and just this week, supported Israel’s newest wave of strikes against Iran. On June 12, 2025, and continuing into June 13, Israel launched a major assault on Iranian military and nuclear sites, killing several top military officials and nuclear scientists. For the last two days (the 13th into the 14th of June), the world has watched in horror as Iran has struck back, with no end in sight and Israel now asking the U.S. for military support. Many believe this could be the spark that starts World War III.

I’ve heard so many Trump supporters say they don’t regret voting for him, because they believe Biden and Harris would’ve been worse. But they’re also saying they feel profoundly disappointed. They believed Trump when he said he’d only be deporting violent criminals and that his focus would be on preventing global war. Instead, they’re watching ICE sweep up their family and friends—hardworking people who pay taxes, have U.S. citizen spouses and children, and contribute to their communities. People who aren’t criminals, yet who are being treated like dangerous fugitives.

We must reframe this conversation. Stop calling people “illegal.” Start calling these raids illegal. Start calling these detainments what they are: lawless, unconstitutional abuses of power. When agents can come to a person’s work, wait by their car, show up at their children’s elementary school, enter their places of worship, all without a warrant while refusing to identify themselves, and take them away—what makes you think that power will only ever be used against immigrants?

This is about so much more than immigration. It’s about the erosion of civil liberties and the normalization of authoritarian tactics. We’ve all seen this movie before.

During COVID, I spoke out very publicly and strongly against vaccine mandates. I believed they were unconstitutional, unethical, and violated the ADA. My disapproval of them came from my liberal, progressive background in Disability Law. Despite critiquing the mandates from “the Left,” I was vilified by many of the very same people who now claim to care so dearly about civil rights. People I considered close friends told me the unvaccinated should be rounded up and put in camps. Parents told me they would never let their kids go to school with mine—hypothetical kids I don’t even have. Fear made them cruel, and the media told them it was justified.

Now, many of the same people who called me a danger to society for stating that prohibiting people from public spaces based on vaccine status and medical documentation was unconstitutional, are watching mass deportation raids unfold, suddenly expressing sentiment against masks and identification papers. Meanwhile, many of the right and moderate leaning voices who did stand up for civil liberties during COVID, are now celebrating these raids, gleefully sharing videos of families being ripped apart because “they’re illegals.” The irony is staggering.

When you’re only outraged by government overreach when it affects you, your principles are hollow. Civil liberties are meaningless if they only apply to people you agree with. That’s not how justice or democracy works.

Since these illegal raids began, we have been completely inundated with calls from family members whose loved ones have been detained. One was from a U.S. citizen woman, whose husband has been here 27 years with no arrests or contact with law enforcement at all. He is in the category of people who entered legally on an employment visa, with his employer promising him that his employment included a path to citizenship. He signed contracts where he agreed to work for a certain number of years at a certain wage (much less than minimum wage for American citizens), and in exchange he would be sponsored for full citizenship. It wasn’t until he worked the 5 years, fulfilling his conditions of the contract, that he discovered his employer had let his legal permit lapse without ever submitting the necessary renewals. Annually, they had falsely assured him these renewals had been completed.

At that point, he was married with children, a home he’d built in the U.S., and without the ability to afford an immigration attorney. If he had been able to, his status could have easily been fixed, likely via a waiver, to explain the extenuating circumstances under which he lost legal status, followed by an adjustment of status through marriage to a U.S. citizen. Because of the deceitfulness and negligence of his employer, combined with his own poverty, the lapsed status reached a number of years that becomes more and more difficult to correct. Sadly, my husband had to tell his sobbing, devastated wife, that there was no longer anything we can do for him. These are the people who deserve a path to citizenship, not to be rounded up and separated from their law-abiding, tax-paying, loving families.

Another phenomenon we are seeing is that people who have legally followed the process to become citizens through the USCIS or immigration court process, are being told to personally appear for hearings, at which time the government is summarily dismissing their case and allowing ICE agents to take them right there. These are not criminals, they are people doing exactly what they are supposed to do under our immigration laws, who are being denied the ability to see their case through to adjudication.

We have been overwhelmed, working 24/7 to help as many people as we can. Those who are having their cases dismissed at hearings, are up against a strict 30-day clock to file an appeal. The same is true for all removal or deportation orders, there is nothing we can do to help once 30 days have passed from the date either of those are issued. There is no firm in Los Angeles that can claim to do anywhere near as much pro-bono work as we do. I’m proud to say it accounts for nearly 50% of our work.

It’s a tenet of my faith that it is our obligation and privilege to help the poor and vulnerable in any and all ways that we can. However, even in cases of indigent clients where we donate our labor, there are still costs and fees to shoulder. Filing fees, translation fees, expedition fees, appeal fees—they are never-ending. We work with Catholic charities, immigrant rights groups, and several nonprofits for referrals and assistance with covering legal fees for the indigent. Still, it is never enough. Every year, we go into our own pockets to cover whatever we can afford for the most desperately in need. With these recent raids, the need and demand has become insurmountable on our own.

In that vein, we have launched a fundraiser to help us cover as many people’s appeals as possible, as quickly as possible, as those who we can help are against that 30-day limit. Any amount helps, and if you cannot afford to donate, please consider sharing the fundraiser. You can rest assured this isn’t some BS grift from some idiot influencer online—this is the best way you can truly help immigrants fight back! I know everyone wants to say or do something, and how powerless it can feel. But the harsh reality is that just rage-posting about what’s happening and hashtagging #F*CKICE or #F*CKTRUMP does not help these people.

What they need is an immigration attorney, and fast. Let’s come together and show the President and the rest of the world that we will not stand by and do nothing to help our neighbors. Help us show the forces that seek to divide us based on prejudices and nationality that we aren’t falling for it, and that this isn’t a Left-Right issues, it’s a human issue.

Donate Here To Help Immigrants Fight Back Against Illegal Detentions

—John 11:35

It’s the shortest verse in the entire Bible—just two words. Yet these two words reveal a deep Truth about who Jesus is, and what that means for those who follow Him.

As someone who was raised a strict Roman Catholic, I didn’t grow up engaging with the Bible or the New Testament in the same way that Protestant denominations do. Recently, I read an essay on Substack where a Christian author recounted a story of one of their former Catholic professors in theology. I wish I’d bookmarked and saved it—if anyone reading this recognizes the narrative, please send it to me so I can link to it. Essentially, the anecdote was that the Catholic theology professor was approached about writing a book called “How Catholics Read the Bible,” and he refused the offer because he told the publisher, simply, “They don’t.”

The story of me coming back to Christianity through Christ is a long one that begins with my Dad’s terminal illness and death in 2019. The painful realizations & lessons on this 5 1/2 year journey could fill a book, as could the incredible power of the redemptive, forgiving Love I’ve found in Jesus. I never used to understand when Christians would say things like, “cultivate a personal relationship with Jesus,” as if you could talk to Him and have a 2-way dialogue. The way I grew up in the Catholic Church, you are taught that just picking up the Bible and reading it without any guidance from a priest, could result in incorrect interpretations. It was best to leave the interpretation to priests, who have dedicated their lives to studying God’s word and the early Church Fathers.

To be fair, I do see the logic in this. It’s not necessarily meant to “gatekeep” or stop you from pursing religious knowledge, the purpose is to protect you from “cherry-picking” or ending up imposing your own biases and interpretations that could be drastically out of line with accepted doctrine. It’s easy when you’re an atheist or agnostic to dismiss the notion of “accepted doctrine,” but this is not purely intellectual for Catholics.

To the contrary, these are sincerely held religious beliefs that matter a great deal in how we worship and live our lives. You need only look at some of today’s “Megachurches,” where pastors accumulate obscene wealth while preaching a distorted, self-serving version of the Gospel, to understand why the Catholic Church emphasizes tradition, authority, and doctrinal guardrails. When Scripture is interpreted without accountability or reverence, it can veer into something not just theologically unsound, but spiritually dangerous—a worship of prosperity and power in place of God.

In recent years, though, that hesitance to engage with Scripture directly has fallen away for me. In my grief, reflection, and never-ending search for inner peace, I’ve come to realize that reading the Bible prayerfully and personally is not only possible, but essential to growing in faith. I still deeply value the Catholic lens through which I was taught to approach Scripture, especially the reverence, humility, and. connection to centuries of Church teaching. But I’ve also come to appreciate the way many Protestants, like my Aunt Chris and Uncle Brian, dive into the Word with intimacy and immediacy. It’s no longer either-or for me. These days, I try to read Scripture every day. Even when I don’t physically pick up a Bible, I fall asleep listening to the Gospels on Audible.

When I do sit down to read one of my many Bible translations, I always have a journal to write my thoughts down. I also check any verse or passage I read against both my Ignatius Catholic Study Bible and my ESV Study Bible, to see if there are any substantive differences in interpretation, and if so, what those differences tell us. I’ve found that reflecting on Scripture in this way has drawn me closer to Jesus than I’ve ever been. When I read Jesus’s words today in 2025, I can hear Him speaking to me as clearly as he spoke to His people over 2,000 years ago.

“Jesus wept.”

This isn’t a saying or parable spoken by Jesus. It’s a narrative detail, quietly placed in the story, yet profoundly revealing of who He is. It offers a glimpse into the mystery of His divine humanity: a God who mourns, who feels, who shares in our pain.

I’m part of a Bible study group with my Uncle Brian, Aunt Chris, and their seven children. Every couple of months, Uncle Brian gives us a passage to “Memorize & Meditate” on—what he calls M&M. We’re supposed to memorize the verse or passage and send a video of ourselves reciting it aloud. After a stretch where very few of us were keeping up, my Uncle selected John 11:35: “Jesus wept.” He told us it was the shortest verse in Scripture, so we had no excuse not to participate this time.

At first, it felt like a clever way to get everyone back on board. But as I sat with those two words, I found myself drawn into deeper reflection.

Jesus…wept.

God, in flesh, cried. And not out of despair, hopelessness or weakness—but out of love.

What strikes me most about this verse is how clearly it reveals Jesus’s human nature, existing alongside his divinity. It reminds me of his agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he prayed alone at midnight, deeply distressed by the suffering and death he knew were imminent. He wrestled with fear, the certainty of His impending doom, and with The Enemy’s whisper that there was a way he could avoid the pain. His struggle took place in both the spiritual and physical realms. It was emotional, not rational. Jesus sweated blood and gasped in anguish as he fought off Satan’s attempts to flood him with doubt. His victory was won by moving through His fear in complete submission to God’s will, not by being immune to fear.

The human experience of pain, fear, and most importantly, Love, is central to who Jesus is: Son of Man. As such, it’s also been the source of extensive theological reflection and debate for centuries.

One of the defining issues that contributed to the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches is rooted in how the nature of Christ’s divinity and humanity is understood and expressed—particularly in the Filioque clause (Latin for “and the Son”), which addresses the procession of the Holy Spirit. The original version of the Nicene Creed, agreed upon at the early ecumenical councils, stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father.” The Western Church (now the Roman Catholic Church) later added “and the Son” (Filioque) without the consent of the Eastern bishops, and without an ecumenical council.

While secular academics might dismiss these as mere semantic disputes, for those who believe, they hold deep spiritual and doctrinal significance that go far beyond wording. The Catholic Church, by affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, expresses the equality of the Father and the Son within the Trinity. It emphasizes their shared divine nature and unity of will & love. The Eastern Orthodox Church rejected this addition, partly because it altered a creed that had been established by an ecumenical council, but also because it implied a kind of symmetry that, in their view, subjugated the Spirit and distorted the Father’s unique and primary role as the sole source within the Trinity. For the Orthodox, the Father alone is the origin point—both of the Son (by begetting) and of the Spirit (by procession)—and altering that hierarchy challenges their beliefs about the distinct roles within the Trinity.

Many Protestant denominations inherited the Filioque through their theological lineage from the Catholic Church, continuing to affirm it as part of their understanding of the Trinity. In many cases, the historical context of the clause isn’t a central focus, and the deeper theological debates surrounding it remain less emphasized in regular teaching. More recent movements within Protestantism, such as Evangelicals and Nondenominational or “Seeker-Friendly” churches, sometimes adopt a simplified or less formally defined view of the Trinity—highlighting the divinity of Christ in powerful and meaningful ways, though often without delving as deeply into the relational dynamics between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teachings do.

In my view, these questions about how the Father, Son, and Spirit relate to one another have everything to do with how we understand Jesus. Does he stand as co-equal with the Father in power and glory, or in a subordinate role due to his humanity? How we answer this inevitably shapes how we pray, how we worship, and how we understand the Love that moved Jesus to weep in John 11:35.

In John 11, for anyone unfamiliar, Jesus weeps as he stands among the mourners gathered at the tomb of Lazarus. Though he knows he is about to raise Lazarus from the dead, he is moved by the grief of those around him—especially Mary and Martha, Lazarus’s sisters, who are devastated by their brother’s death. Jesus doesn’t rush past their grief. Instead, he enters into it. With them, He weeps tears of compassion, empathy, and love. He allows himself to feel the weight of their pain, even knowing the miracle that is moments away. This narrative reveals both the tenderness of Jesus’s humanity and the breadth of His divine love.

As I’ve searched for a local church to call home, I’ve wrestled with these questions. It’s tempting to want a perfect fit, where every church doctrine aligns exactly with my personal convictions and interpretations of Scripture. But if I wait for that, I’ll never belong anywhere. It’s equally tempting to tell yourself that you don’t need to attend church at all, given that you can pray and worship wherever you want, because He knows your heart.

What I’ve come to see is that what matters most isn’t finding a church that agrees with me on every point; it’s finding a community where I can worship with others, receive the Eucharist, and live out the Command to love my neighbor. We’re not meant to walk this journey alone. Jesus made that crystal clear. When asked about the greatest Commandment, he gave us a simple yet radical directive: love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Mark 12:28–31 (NRSV):

One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?”

Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one;

you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’

The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Being able to love God and love our neighbors necessarily requires learning to love ourselves. Not in pride, but with the compassion and patience God shows us. It means not judging others by the letter of the law, while failing to live out the spirit of it in our own lives (otherwise known as “being a hypocrite”). We’re all sinners who need only sincerely ask for God’s forgiveness to receive it. How can we expect forgiveness and mercy from God, without being merciful and forgiving towards our brothers and sisters here on Earth?

Even as Jesus was being nailed to the cross, He cried out, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34) Hours later, in an expression of His raw humanity, He yelled, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34) before finally surrendering Himself: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” (Luke 23:46) In these moments, just as when He wept, Jesus shows us that divine Love is never detached from human suffering; it enters into it, embraces it, and redeems it.

My Ignatius Catholic Study Bible offers a beautiful insight on John 11:35:

“Tears, not of despair, but of love and sympathy for Lazarus and his family. This small narrative detail points to an awesome theological mystery: Jesus, who became man in every respect except sin, experienced the full range of human emotions.”

This note further directs the reader to CCC1 478:

CCC 478: Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony, and his Passion and gave himself up for each one of us:

“The Son of God… loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). He has loved us all with a human heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins and for our salvation, “is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that… love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human beings” without exception.

— Pius XII, Haurietis aquas, 1956

This love is intimate, immediate, and directed toward each of us individually, throughout all time. Jesus wept because He loved. He didn’t weep out of powerlessness, but because He stood in the tension between divine authority and human grief. He knew he would raise Lazarus—but still, He paused to mourn with those who mourned.

In Jesus, we see both divinity and humanity fully present: a Savior who holds the power to raise the dead, yet still pauses to mourn. When He wept, He didn’t diminish His divinity. He revealed its fullness through perfect compassion.

It calls to mind the famous poem, Footprints in the Sand. In the townhouse I grew up in, my Mom had a big, ceramic scroll painted with the poem, prominently centered as the main focal point of our living room display cabinet. It tells the story of the human realization that at our lowest points, God has not abandoned us. When Jesus was crucified, He was not forsaken.

When we weep, God weeps with us, just as Jesus wept with Mary and Martha outside the tomb of Lazarus. And when we rejoice, He rejoices with us too! And what incredibly Good News it is that the God who shares in our suffering, is also the God who delights in our redemption.

You can support Lauren and her writing by becoming a paid subscriber for as little as $4/month.

Subscribe now

The first federal hearing in United States v. Luigi Mangione took place at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse on Foley Street in Manhattan. Mangione appeared calm and composed, seated at the defense table in a khaki prison jumpsuit and white undershirt, his hair freshly trimmed—shorter than it was at his last state court appearance in February. Notably, he was unshackled throughout the proceeding—a stark contrast to the state-level hearing, where he had been restrained hand and foot, prompting repeated objections from his attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo (KFA). The shift in treatment raises questions about how differently the NYPD and the federal government assess his threat level. It also yielded one of the most iconic courtroom photos in recent memory:

At the defense table, seated left to right, were Avraham Moskowitz (Mangione’s court-appointed death penalty counsel), Mangione, Marc Agnifilo, and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, with Karen seated closest to the prosecution. Sofia Agnifilo, daughter of Marc and Karen and the team’s paralegal, sat directly behind. Throughout the hearing, Mangione took notes on a yellow legal pad, occasionally smiling and nodding at quiet remarks from his attorneys. The proceedings were presided over by Judge Margaret Garnett, who disclosed prior professional interactions with members of both legal teams, though no objections were raised.

\After reading the charges aloud, Judge Garnett asked Mangione how he pled. He answered clearly: not guilty on all counts. The charges—already the subject of intense national scrutiny—are detailed in the federal indictment (link to full text).

That plea, however, stands in stark contrast to the public rhetoric surrounding Mangione’s legal defense fund, especially from its two most prominent organizers: Jamie Peck and Sam Beard. Both have framed Mangione as a political prisoner and folk hero, invoking jury nullification and the moral legitimacy of violent resistance against a corrupt healthcare system. But if Mangione is pleading not guilty—and if his attorneys are arguing that prejudicial public commentary is compromising his right to a fair trial—then how does it help his case when his fund’s organizers all but confirm his guilt, framing it as justified?

Seen purely through the lens of legal strategy, this dissonance would be alarming if I were on Mangione’s defense team. Peck and Beard seem to be steering the public narrative in a direction that directly contradicts the strategy unfolding in court. Peck even appears in the HBO documentary about the case, alongside New York City Mayor Eric Adams and a cast of actors who, according to reports, were given access to Mangione’s alleged manifesto before his own attorneys received it.

In the film, she says, “I understood immediately why someone would kill this guy”—“this guy” being Brian Thompson. It’s a jarring soundbite, especially when paired with a not guilty plea and ongoing motions to suppress evidence and challenge procedural violations. Beard, though more measured, still leans heavily into the socioeconomic themes, calling the healthcare CEO’s death a response to “bureaucratic murder.” These statements don’t support a not guilty defense. If anything, they undermine it.

About the Defense Fund

Their approach raises another question: Why take money from people whose public statements may be actively harming your defense? The fund has raised nearly a million dollars—hard to turn down, perhaps—but if I were Mangione’s counsel, I’d be demanding tighter message discipline from anyone publicly associated with the case.

When I reached out to Peck and Beard for comment, Peck never responded. Beard eventually replied via email, agreeing only to answer written questions.

What I Asked:

“Would you characterize your support for Luigi Mangione as being anti-privatized, corporate healthcare, or pro-his innocence regarding the charges he faces? Or both?”

Beard’s Response:

“We believe in the right of all Americans to a rigorous legal defense, and we want to ensure Luigi has the resources he needs to mount one. What we are seeing around us is the development of a full-on fascist, corporatist police state, where a tiny handful of oligarchs plunge us into the worst of all possible timelines. Luigi has become a symbol of the resistance to this impending nightmare, and that is why they are trying to kill him. He represents a light for hundreds of millions of people around the world, and that is why we are trying to protect him from state violence and repression.”

I’ll let readers draw their own conclusions from that.

Discovery, Evidence, and the Fog of Claims

One of the biggest unresolved mysteries remains the nature and scope of the evidence. Since the earliest stages of the case, authorities have hinted at massive amounts of data implicating Mangione, with references to terabytes of surveillance footage and digital records. Yet the material made public so far is underwhelming. The clearest image of Mangione comes from November 24th, 2024, when he was reportedly checking into a hostel on the Upper West Side. Every other image is of a masked figure in dark clothing with a hood and light backpack—images that, by themselves, leave ample room for reasonable doubt.

At Friday's hearing, the prosecution finally began outlining the nature of this long-awaited discovery. Dominic Gentile, representing the Southern District of New York, stated the government would be producing four "tranches" of evidence totaling over 1TB:

1. Search warrant returns from grand jury subpoenas of social media, financial, and cell phone companies

2. Google Drive and iCloud data (about 1GB)

3. Files from NYPD and Pennsylvania prosecutors, including social media and law enforcement data

4. The largest tranche (1TB) from the Manhattan DA's office

Gentile committed to delivering all tranches within the next 2-3 weeks, and Judge Garnett ordered full production by May 27. This means the defense team will finally have access to the so-called "manifesto" — a key piece of alleged evidence that has curiously been made available to media producers before defense counsel. Thomas Dickey, Mangione's Pennsylvania attorney, has separately moved to suppress all evidence seized at the time of his arrest, arguing that the items, including the manifesto, were found outside of Mangione's immediate possession and searched in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

For those inclined to wager, Polymarket currently offers odds on whether the evidence seized from the backpack at the Altoona McDonald’s will ultimately be suppressed, with a potential 150% return at the time of writing for those betting 'yes.'

The Dual Prosecution Dilemma

Karen Friedman Agnifilo raised a major issue during the hearing: the highly irregular parallel prosecution of Mangione by both New York State and the federal government. She explained that while there had initially been only a “handshake agreement” allowing the state case to proceed first, the defense’s stance had shifted now that the federal government is seeking the death penalty. Agnifilo told the judge they would now be "treating the federal case as if it’s the only case," and said a formal motion to that effect would be filed soon—citing a range of constitutional concerns if the state case were allowed to go forward first.

Judge Garnett acknowledged the issue and laid out a detailed schedule for motions:

• June 27: Defense motion to preclude the death penalty due

• August 8: Government response due

• August 27: Defense reply

• September 26: All suppression and indictment-related motions due

• October 31: Government responses due

• November 14: Defense replies due

• December 5: Next court conference

The timing of these deadlines is telling. The June 27 filing by the defense falls just one day after a scheduled state court hearing on June 26—suggesting that, if their federal motion is granted, they may deprioritize or seek to delay the state proceeding.

The December 5 conference date is symbolically charged as well, landing just one year and one day after Brian Thompson was shot. The federal trial itself isn't expected to begin until 2026, meaning that if Judge Garnett grants the defense’s motion to proceed federally first, the state trial would be postponed until after the federal case concludes—if it moves forward at all.

Notably, Judge Garnett also took seriously the defense’s claim that a member of the Manhattan DA’s team had listened to a recorded jailhouse call between Mangione and his attorney. The prosecution claimed to be unaware of the incident and called it "not normal practice." The judge ordered a formal response by May 7.

Re: Spectacle, Symbolism, and the Mangione Mythos

Outside the courtroom, the case continues to stir chaotic and contradictory energies. More than 60 people lined up to get into the hearing, with many more rallying outside. The crowd was racially and generationally diverse. Among them was Chelsea Manning—an emblem of government whistleblowing and resistance—who has, at the very least, stood in line for each hearing, though it’s unclear if she’s actually made it inside yet.

One passerby asked, “Is this the guy who killed the healthcare CEO?” Several supporters quickly shot back, “Allegedly!”

The comment may have been offhand, but it captured something the legal fund’s organizers often miss: the difference between political support and legal protection. Jamie Peck, for instance, reportedly drew criticism from fellow supporters for cutting the line to enter the courtroom. Her visibility—and the fact that she helped raise nearly $1 million for Mangione’s defense—may give her informal status, but many are beginning to question who, exactly, she’s accountable to.

The stakes here are literally life and death. Yet the most visible figures behind Mangione’s defense often seem more interested in mythmaking than in securing a favorable legal outcome.

There is a line between symbolism and sabotage. If this case is truly about whether Luigi Mangione pulled the trigger—and that’s what the legal process is designed to determine—then those acting on his behalf should consider whether their narratives are doing more harm than good.

The deeper tragedy lies not only in the crime itself, but in what the reaction to this case reveals about American life. To some, Mangione represents a system so hollowed out by inequality and betrayal that even violence begins to feel understandable—if not defensible. To others, he’s simply a murderer trying to avoid accountability.

But beyond the politics and media frenzy, a more unsettling question lingers: are we even capable of seeing individuals clearly anymore? In a country fractured by economic despair and institutional decay, do we instinctively turn real people into symbols—heroes, villains, martyrs—instead of confronting the harder truths their stories expose?

A glimpse at Mangione’s intellectual history only complicates the picture. According to a December 9, 2024 article in People, his Goodreads account showed engagement with works like John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy—a text that argues wealth distribution is not a natural inevitability but a moral and political choice. Mill believed government intervention was sometimes necessary to protect the powerless, and that economic structures should serve the greatest good—not simply reward inherited privilege.

If Mangione truly gravitated toward those ideas, it suggests a worldview shaped by deep disillusionment with how American institutions allocate dignity, justice, and survival itself. It also raises a more difficult question: as someone born into privilege, was he wrestling with unresolved tensions around class, identity, and belonging?

Mangione’s case has touched something volatile: a collective sense of abandonment, a fury at institutions that demand everything and deliver so little. It’s tempting to romanticize him—or to condemn him in sweeping terms. It’s harder to sit with the discomfort that the system itself, not just the individuals caught within it, may have failed long before a shot was ever fired.

The law demands that we judge facts, not feelings. But whether we still can—or are even willing to—remains an open question.

Subscribe now

Get 20% off for 1 year

The process of compiling the filings related to the federal government’s pursuit of the death penalty began on April 15th, following the defense team’s initial Motion to Preclude the Government from Seeking the Death Penalty, filed by KFA and her team on April 11th. The U.S. Attorney’s Office responded on April 15th. Subsequently, the federal indictment against Mangione was officially entered on April 17th. He was arraigned the next day, April 18th, and his first federal hearing took place on April 25th. During that hearing, Judge Garnett asked KFA whether the defense would be “renewing” the Motion to Preclude, to which KFA confirmed they would.

Upon reviewing the federal docket on April 18th, it became clear that the original April 11th Motion to Preclude had been marked as “Terminated.” Judge Garnett’s comments and KFA’s response during the April 25th hearing confirmed this termination, which aligns procedurally given that the original motion was filed prior to the formal federal indictment. The deadline for the renewed Motion to Preclude has now been set for June 27, 2025—one day after the currently scheduled New York state criminal hearing. The Government’s response is due August 8th, followed by a final deadline of August 27th for the defense to reply.

While the earlier death penalty filings are technically no longer active, they remain valuable as a preview of the arguments likely to appear in the renewed motion and the forthcoming responses from both parties. All of the previously filed death penalty documents are provided below the next section, organized chronologically by their filing dates.

Clearing Up Some Common Legal Confusions

The question of whether Luigi Mangione will face the death penalty has been a driving force in the public discourse about the murder of Brian Thompson, for which Mangione now stands accused in three separate and concurrent criminal prosecutions. Much ado was made about the NY state terrorism enhancements to the murder and firearms charges, with a lot of misconceptions about the standard for the death penalty. Allow me to clear some of that confusion up.

First, Luigi Mangione is being prosecuted at the state level in Pennsylvania and New York, and by the federal government. Neither New York nor Pennsylvania currently allow the death penalty, so capital punishment cannot be sought by either of those state’s prosecutors. Second, while the terrorism enhancements are unique to New York and do not stem from the federal charges, they do play in as a potential “aggravating factor” under federal law.

The conditions under which it is legal for the federal government to sentence a human being to die are governed by 18 U.S.C. §3591 & §3592. Under §3592, there is a list of 16 “aggravating factors” for homicide that may be considered in determining whether a sentence of death is justified. Number 9 on that list is “substantial planning and premeditation,” which is defined as “The defendant committed the offense after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person or commit an act of terrorism.” This is the aggravating factor the federal indictment focuses on in the “Special findings” section following the four main charges.

While public speculation about the death penalty began about as soon as Mangione was arrested, the first serious indication that the federal government would actually pursue it was on Feb 4, 2025, when Attorney Avraham Chaim Moskowitz was appointed as “learned counsel” to the case by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. In federal death penalty cases, at least one of the defendant’s attorneys must be “learned counsel,” meaning an attorney with specialized experience in handling capital cases, particularly the complex legal and constitutional issues that come up when the death penalty is on the table.

Mr. Moskowitz’s Appointment appears below as the first filing related to the death penalty.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Next, we have the Defense’s April 11th Motion to Preclude the Government from Seeking the Death Penalty (I must warn you, it’s 33 pages):

I won’t comment too extensively, but would bring your attention to the central argument around “politicization” of the case. NYC Mayor Eric Adams and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi are not only mentioned by name, their statements about the case, Luigi, and capital punishment are core pieces to the Defense’s arguments for precluding the government from seeking the death penalty. I expect the renewed motion to be very similar to this one, with refinement.

Here is the Prosecution’s initial response to the above motion, dated 4/14/25 and E-filed 4/15/25. You may notice that it’s in the form of a letter to the judge rather than a formal opposition to the motion. This was an indication to me that there would be another motion in the future, or that something was going on with the original motion. The federal indictment was due by 4/18, so this signaled that it might actually be entered this time. This response is only three pages long, not responding to substantive arguments, but citing a lack of authority and lack of “ripeness” due to the indictment not yet being entered.

You can bet that the Government’s response due on August 8th will be more a more thorough and formal opposition, responding to every legal argument in the Defense’s motion. Upon receipt and filing of the above response by the Government, Judge Ramos ordered the Defense to reply by April 18th, if they chose.

The Defense filed their reply on April 16th. I know it can be confusing, but the Defense gets a chance at rebuttal to the Prosecution’s response.

You can read my introductory piece for Jessica’s audience here:

House Inhabit

Murder at Midtown: The Trial of Luigi Mangione // An Intro

The last thing Luigi Mangione liked on Goodreads: A quote from Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s Slaughterhouse-Five…

Read more

a year ago · 92 likes · 11 comments · Lauren Davidson-Ibarra

What I love so much about this opportunity, is that Jessica has been incredibly supportive of my creative freedom to cover this story from my own unique perspective on my personal Substack, which as I’ve said before is as a cross between a lawyer and Luigi’s defensive cousin—his unofficial My Cousin Vinny, if you will. At the same time, I’ll be able to share the saga with a larger audience, who is also very interested in the cultural and political implications of this case.

I’m aware that some people may feel strongly one way or another about House Inhabit for political reasons, but a huge part of the reason I’m so thrilled for this opportunity is the chance to write for such a diverse audience of liberals, conservatives, and independents. We are all Americans, and this case has put a huge spotlight on many of the fissures of modern American society. As my husband recently noted, nothing tells you more quickly what socioeconomic class someone belongs to than getting their opinion on Luigi Mangione.

As I laid out in the introductory article for House Inhabit linked above, when I speak to people about this case, the discussion quickly becomes emotional, even for legal professionals. For people who have watched a loved one die in agony, without a penny left to their name due to healthcare insurance companies denying coverage, it’s not about Luigi’s guilt or innocence—it’s about what Brian Thompson deserved for the net harm that he caused during his tenure as UnitedHealthcare’s CEO.

There are two prevailing perspectives on this: either he had the blood of countless people on his hands, for which he deserved to be held accountable for; or he was just a CEO performing his fiduciary duties to the company & its shareholders, to whom he was obligated to maximize profits, who did not deserve to be gunned down in the street.

Which of those two perspectives someone holds is most likely to align with whether they see themselves (or the human beings they love) as more likely to be in Brian Thompson’s shoes, or in the shoes of someone unable to get approved for life-saving medical care for insurance reasons. The debate over the American healthcare system has never been at such a boiling point, and I’ve never seen a high-profile murder case split so cleanly down class lines.

In the upcoming months leading up to the trial, I’ll be continuing to write exclusive pieces for my own subscribers, while tailoring articles and pieces for House Inhabit’s audience. In my view, I welcome anyone capable of free thought who is interested in this incredibly compelling story, for the important implications it has for American culture and jurisprudence. Jessica and I both hope that the crossover from our audiences, along with the (hopefully) civil discourse that results, can contribute in some small way to healing the mutual mistrust from each side of the aisle that defines so much of the current moment.

If you feel so inclined to support my writing (as a reminder, I’m a practicing attorney that does not write as my full time career), you can become a paid subscriber for only $4/month using the link below for The Luigi Special. It’s enough to get me a cup of coffee while I’m burning the midnight oil, so thank you to all current & future subscribers!

Stay tuned for my full analysis of the Luigi Mangione Legal Fund (including written responses to questions from Sam Beard), as well as the gradual publishing of more of my non-Luigi related essays, recipes, and book chapters here.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Hilariously, the original source for the claims and only named individual who claims to have seen the videos is Kevin Blatt, described as a “sex tape broker” who is “famous for helping celebrities broker deals or suppress sex tapes.” Had you ever heard of this guy before? Ya, me either. Immediately, my bullshit radar went up. I now believe the whole thing was all an elaborate PR stunt for Blatt, who I think paid The Sun to run the headline as an advertisement for himself. This is just my opinion, I do not claim to know this for a fact or to be able to prove this.

I just happen to know from my own experience with hiring marketing and PR firms, this is exactly the kind of thing they would do or pitch for someone trying to get clients in this sort of ridiculous “industry.” These days the goal for everything is to go viral, and practically all marketing and PR concepts/campaigns are based on this—the goal is to have everyone Googling your name and thinking you’re a professional who the top celebrities use for suppressing sex tapes. The hope is that people who are not celebrities but are afraid of possible nudes or sex tapes out there will seek you out for your services, after all—no one has seen these Luigi tapes, right? Blatt claims to have seen them, but no one else has, so he must be good at his job, eh?

Origins and Content of the Claims

The initial report surfaced from RadarOnline, which cited an anonymous insider claiming that Mangione had created at least 20 "cinema-level" sex tapes, stating, "He wanted to be watched. He got off on it." The “source,” and I use that term sarcastically, further alleged that these videos had many women in them, claiming the women were all hesitant to come forward, fearing “legal repercussions,”—which makes absolutely no sense.

What legal repercussions? For what? Being in a porn? That’s not illegal. Being in a porn with Luigi Mangione? Also not illegal. In fact, if it were true, it would mean these other women had voluntarily filmed “cinema-level” sex tapes with someone who now has huge public support and is wildly popular, which you would think would motivate them to release it. There’s no allegation anyone did anything against their will or was secretly filmed without their knowledge; typically people who voluntarily film “cinema level” pornography do so intending to make money from it. With Mangione’s high profile arrest and cases, if these existed, they would become the hottest-ticket items in existence. Which is why I do not buy that they exist.

The only evidence provided for these claims are some very grainy, terrible still photos of Luigi, which look like basic bathroom selfies everyone has taken of themselves at some point. These could’ve been pulled off of his phone, his iCloud, or from private texts or DMs he sent. Nothing to back up claims about “cinema quality” films, with the entirety of this claim made by an unnamed “insider.” What in the hell does “insider” even mean? An insider where? They don’t even say if it’s a person claiming to know Luigi personally or if it’s someone from the police, the prosecution, a friend, who? An “insider” with whom?

In my opinion, it’s all a viral marketing tactic by Blatt, the intent of which was simply to provide a fake, viral headline for Blatt to “comment” on in a way that advertises his services. After the initial salacious, sourceless claims made the initial rounds, next Blatt was featured as the “expert” commenting on the matter. He then claims to have seen the films, that they are actually not high-quality, they’re just grainy videos taken from Luigi’s parents’ bathroom, that he sent to someone on Grindr. With this claim, he plants another seed about Luigi’s sexuality, while artificially positioning himself as an expert/insider who has “seen” the footage.

Once the initial story ran in RadarOnline, The Sun quickly ran stories echoeing the allegations, using the same quotes from the unnamed “insider,” emphasizing the purported high production quality of the videos and Mangione's alleged desire to establish his own "porno empire." The article also noted that Mangione had sent unsolicited nude photos to women, despite reportedly expressing concerns about porn addiction hindering real-life relationships. Again, I believe that if there were nudes of Luigi Mangione out there, we’d have them. There would be no way to prevent the people in possession of something like that from selling them or releasing them, in my opinion.

Blatt, the self-proclaimed, number one celebrity sex tape broker, claims someone approached him trying to sell a grainy, low quality video of Luigi for half a million dollars. Guess what? If this were true, and Blatt passed on it, the seller would just keep going lower and lower in number to more outlets. Blatt uses the same article as an opportunity to state that Ye, formerly Kanye West, paid him $250,000 to suppress a sex tape of himself with a sex worker. Imagine me rolling my eyes as dramatically as eyes can be rolled.

Assessing Source Credibility

The primary sources of these allegations—RadarOnline and The Sun—are widely recognized for their tabloid journalism, often prioritizing sensationalism over rigorous fact-checking. The reliance on unnamed insiders and the lack of verifiable evidence further undermine the credibility of these reports.​

The dissemination of such dubious information raises critical questions about intent. Who stands to benefit from tarnishing Mangione's reputation with potentially unfounded claims? Conversely, who is harmed by the public's acceptance of these narratives?

Personal Commentary and Speculation

It's worth acknowledging that in today's digital age, many individuals, particularly younger adults, engage in sharing intimate content or recording personal sexual encounters. The notion that Mangione might have personal recordings isn't inherently shocking. However, the assertion that these are high-budget productions invites skepticism. If true, questions arise: Was Mangione self-producing these videos, potentially utilizing family resources? Or was he acting in externally produced adult films? Both scenarios seem implausible without concrete evidence.​

This situation also evokes parallels to historical instances where government programs, such as MK-Ultra, allegedly manipulated individuals into compromising situations. Could these rumors be part of a broader strategy to discredit Mangione? Alternatively, if the tapes do exist, might they support theories of external coercion or manipulation? While speculative, these possibilities merit contemplation.​

I personally do not think these videos exist, but I do buy that there may be some nude selfies out there. He is a 26-year old! I don’t know anyone age 40 or younger with a smartphone who has never taken a single nude of themselves. The allegations surrounding Luigi Mangione's purported sex tapes are fraught with inconsistencies (are they grainy selfies or highly produced, cinema quality films?) and originate from highly questionable sources (unnamed insider and a guy who profits off people believing he’s a top “sex tape broker”).

I’ll end with a popular online sentiment: Pics or it didn’t happen. Filed under, “I’ll believe it when I see it.”

Deep Dives coming this weekend on the December 4th Legal Fund and the official timeline of events for December 4th, 2024 according to the federal criminal complaint, some content will be for paid subscribers only, so make sure to Subscribe and take advantage of the super-cheap Luigi Special below!

Get 20% off for 1 year

The original date for the preliminary hearing or indictment filing deadline was 1/18, which was continued at the agreement of both parties to 2/17, which was again continued at the agreement of both parties to 3/19. Now, it has been moved again to 4/18/25, at the agreement of both parties. This means that Luigi will continue to be held in federal custody with NO FEDERAL INDICTMENT for another 30 days, he is being held on a complaint only, while the state prosecution goes forward before the federal prosecution. It’s all unprecedented in every way, and brings up so many questions about his defense.

Why consent to a third extension like this if you’re KFA or Luigi’s legal team? At the hearing on 2/21 in NYC, KFA brought up the delays from the prosecution and the unusual order in which the prosecution is proceeding. Prosecutor Kaplan replied that all the delays and extensions had been granted with the consent of the defense. KFA responded very dramatically, saying “Your Honor, when the prosecution is holding the death penalty over your client, you have no choice but to consent.”

I find this rather odd—perhaps for the first, maybe even the second continuance, I might be able to buy this. But a third? Most defense attorneys would be raising hell by this point about the lack of due process, the unfair treatment, and the federal inability to come up with an indictment by this point. I think the evidence is a complete disaster for the prosecution, and they are having a hard time coming up with how to charge him based on the evidence that they’ll have to turn over to his defense. But what’s up with KFA?

I’ll leave you to ponder that—let me know your thoughts in the comments and chat.

Images of the latest continuance docs below, filed 3/17 in federal court. The first 3 pages are the request for continuance, the last 2 pages are the judge’s order for the continuance.

Subscribe to stay updated and get all new articles and Deep Dives—major pieces dropping this weekend!

Subscribe now

Get 20% off for 1 year

Read more

In examining and reflecting on my own feelings about Luigi Mangione and the legal aspects of the case, I had to ask myself, why exactly do I feel so defensive of him? Why have I taken such a special interest in this case? I don’t want to bang him—although I am the first to acknowledge his attractiveness is a major part of his fusion into the popular culture and attitude of the public towards the case. Like many, I was captured by the crime since December 4, 2024, and participated in the public conversation around it in the days leading up to the suspect’s photograph and name being released, as well as the manhunt that ended at the Altoona McDonald’s with Luigi’s arrest.

At first, my interest was not very different from every other member of the public. It’s an extremely fascinating crime, regardless of your thoughts on who did it or the ethical/philosophical discussion around what is or isn’t a justified killing. The idea that there is this super genius out there, who the mainstream media has painted as this prodigy, “tech bro” with the intelligence, engineering capabilities, and money/access to be able to so perfectly plan and execute this crime with a 3D printed gun and silencer, who then suddenly & inexplicably turned into the dumbest person alive right after committing the crime (having all of the evidence tying him to it, along with a “manifesto” at the Altoona McDonalds), is a difficult sell for me.

Approaching it like a defense attorney, the criminal complaints just have so many holes and obvious instances of reasonable doubt—along with claims that seem absurd on their face, with very selectively chosen information alongside very selective omissions. Everything about it had my bullshit radar going off like crazy, and that was before the public revelation that he is from a giant, affluent, Italian-American family who have all been completely silent about the case and his arrest.

This absolute, radio silence from the entire Mangione family gives me a horrible feeling in my chest that makes me uncomfortable when I think about it too long. I’m starting to feel it right now, as I put my thoughts about it into writing. It’s anxiety in my chest that comes from knowing something is off, without knowing exactly what it is or why. It’s very similar to the feeling I get when I realize a client has lied to me about something that they thought was inconsequential, which makes me realize they could be lying about everything, including the very consequential things.

I’m only half Sicilian-American, and just that half of my family is very stereotypical, in that they are very Catholic with a ton of kids. Luigi’s father, Louis Mangione, is one of ten children. Luigi is one of 37 first cousins and grandchildren to his grandparents, Nicholas and Mary Mangione. The idea that a huge, wealthy, powerful Italian-American family like this would all be 100% silent, giving no comments, no support, not even a generic statement of “everyone is innocent until proven guilty,” boggles my mind. It’s completely incompatible with my lived experience, and how most Italian or Sicilian-American families I know (including mine) would be behaving in these circumstances.

As I put it in a comment to my article detailing my experience in the courtroom, I have at least 20 relatives on the Sicilian-American side of my family who, if they started a huge fight with me at a family wedding, I wouldn’t be surprised—but who would still be in the front row behind me in court at the drop of a pin. The way Italian & Sicilian women feel about the men in their family, and the loyalty Italians & Sicilians have towards each other (and their blood relatives especially), is a well-known stereotype of our culture that anyone with any Italian or Sicilian ancestry can affirm is highly accurate. We are also famously LOUD, love to talk and tell stories, and are quite defensive/sensitive about being called criminals or murderers—probably something to do with a century of being treated like everyone with a vowel at the end of their name must have at least one member of their family in the mafia.

This is what makes it so amazing to me that not a single one of Luigi’s immediate or extended family has said anything at all, not even the most milquetoast, non-committal kind of statement. I can tell you that if my Sicilian Grandma were alive & healthy (may God rest her soul) and I stood accused of a high-profile murder for which I were facing the death penalty—that I was vehemently declaring my innocence of and had pled not guilty to—with all of these strange legal anomalies in the complaints and the way the prosecution is moving forward, she would be out there every day declaring my innocence and attending every court appearance. Same goes for my Mom. My Mom wouldn’t even have to believe in my innocence in her heart to still publicly support me and be at my hearings.

Like many Italian or Sicilian Americans, I grew up hearing the phrase “blood is thicker than water” a lot, always said as a reminder that anyone who isn’t your family cannot be fully trusted, and to never go against a family member in public. You can say whatever you want within the family, but you don’t say certain things to non-family, and you don’t let your guard down and treat anyone like blood who isn’t. I’m embarrassed to say that I did not always heed this advice, and have learned more lessons about this “the hard way” than I care to admit.

I can completely see and understand no one from Luigi’s family talking to the press outright—that would be a direct violation of the above policy. But not a single one of them supporting him at any hearing, or having any statement of support or innocence within the only statement released by his family? That’s the truly unfathomable part for me. And if you’re only going to release one statement before never speaking publicly on it again, why would that one statement contain more empathy for Brian Thompson than for your own family member? Why would it sound like the entire family has already accepted Luigi’s guilt?

The Mangione Family’s only statement was released by Antonino “Nino” Mangione, a politician serving as a Republican member of the Maryland House of Delegates, representing District 42A since 2023. It appears below.

This is quite difficult to wrap my head around, because there are so many other ways you could respond to this without sounding like you think your own, beloved family member is guilty. Especially given a case like this, with so many areas of opportunity for reasonable doubt that even complete strangers (like me) have rallied to Luigi’s defense over them. After hearing/reading fairly poor reviews about the 41-minute HBO documentary titled “Who is Luigi Mangione” currently streaming on HBO’s Max, I finally sat down and watched it with my husband. This is supposedly a “documentary” that is about who he is, and it did not feature one single, solitary person in the entire thing who could call themselves a family member or close friend of Luigi’s. It didn’t even feature a breakdown of his family, or include the names of his siblings.

Instead, it featured representatives from the private security industry, journalists, law enforcement, the NYPD police chief and NYC Mayor Eric Adams, and even an individual who represents themselves as the organizer of Luigi’s “legal defense fund,” saying on camera that she could “totally understand why someone would want to kill this guy,” in which “this guy” is referring to Brian Thompson. Instead of even one person who could call themselves a third cousin or cousin by marriage or anyone who was a friend of his from childhood, there were two individuals featured as a “Mangione Family Friend,” who both miraculously seemed to have figured the whole case out already! Almost as though they had the official theory of the case explained to them, and they parroted it exactly back as instructed.

I searched exhaustively for any statements from any immediate or extended family member since December 9th, when Luigi’s name was released and he was arrested at the Altoona McDonald’s. The only thing that came close to a positive statement was reported by The Times of India1, claiming that Luigi’s sister, Luciana Mangione, had posted a picture of them together on social media with the words “praying for you.” Of course, this post can no longer be viewed and has been removed, as the article indicates. Why would his own sister remove something as innocuous as saying that she is praying for him? Why does it seem as though there is some kind of directive being followed by everyone close to him, without any deviation?

There is of course, a whole other discussion that needs to be had around the “December 4th Legal Defense” fund and why someone of the Mangione family’s wealth would need a legal defense fund. Thomas Dickey (Luigi’s PA attorney) and Karen Friedman Agnifilo (KFA, Luigi’s attorney in the NY State and Fed criminal proceedings) are not cheap lawyers, and they were retained almost immediately. Dickey was retained within 24 hours, so I initially assumed (like everyone else) that his wealthy family had retained him great attorneys. The “legal defense fund” raises a lot of questions for me, along with the Mangione family silence, because it indicates that his family are not the ones paying his lawyers. I have another deep-dive that will be coming out this week on the legal defense fund, so stay tuned (and subscribe!).

For now, I’ll end here and leave you to ponder the following: under what circumstances would you be completely silent if you were Luigi’s mother, father, sister, cousin, loved one, or close friend? Under what circumstances would you not even say that you’re praying for him, or that he’s got a right to a fair trial?

When I asked myself these questions, it became clear to me that the reason I feel so defensive about Luigi is that he has no one from his actual family standing with him. It makes me feel some type of way, as Gen Z says, imagining myself in his position—with no one in my big, fat, Sicilian-American family saying a word in my support.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments! I do have court today, but will do my best to dedicate at least an hour to replying to comments/discussions here. One last note: I am not going to be answering or commenting on comments/questions made anywhere other than my Substack, as it takes too much time & energy. I encourage anyone who wants to engage with the topics I write about to do so here, on Substack.

As a bonus for paid subscribers, I’ll be publishing my raw notes from the courthouse and the hearing on 2/21 for paid subscribers only this week.

Subscribe now

Get 20% off for 1 year

When it got to this point in the hearing, it was all about what evidence had not yet been turned over to the defense, so that is the context in which the statements and arguments were made. As I remember it (and as I confirmed when I re-listened to my voice note to myself that I took as soon as we were let out of the hearing), KFA said the following “We still don’t have the search warrants or affidavits for the bag, we still don’t even know where the bag was…”

This led to an interjection by the Prosecution (Kaplan) that they were “still redacting” and had “turned over bodycam from the Altoona police.” This was when I heard the word “car,” when KFA responded to this claim from Kaplan, she said something along the lines of (I’m not claiming I’m getting it exactly verbatim) “when they came in from the car, they had the bag.” She also stated at the same time that the prosecution had only turned over one of the twelve officers’ bodycam footage. KFA wanted it on the record that it was not accurate for Kaplan to claim they’d turned it over, when there was still 11 bodycams (her claim) of the relevant angles being held from them, along with not yet being provided the search warrants or affidavits for the bag.

KFA was clearly implying (to use a word that some people don’t seem to understand) that there was some kind of question as to the bag (like where it was when it was searched), and laying the groundwork that she suspects it was improperly searched/seized outside of the McDonalds and not within Luigi’s presence.

Many readers hyper-fixated on the word “car,” and believed that I must have been mistaken. I never said there was a car referred to as “Mangione’s rental car” or anything like that, I just said that KFA said “when they came inside from the car, they had the bag” (that was the gist of her statement, I didn’t have a recording device, and could not possibly remember every word verbatim). The ensuing conversation about illegal search and seizure is what made my lawyer senses go up, and tell me that there was an issue with the bag and where it was searched, meaning at least the defense team believed it was searched or seized outside of Luigi’s presence.

Now, it is being reported by multiple outlets that Luigi’s PA attorney (Tom Dickey) has filed a motion to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence during the McDonald’s arrest, claiming that Luigi was blocked from exit by approximately 10 police officers, then his backpack was seized and brought out of his sight, where it was searched in another location before he was officially arrested and without his Miranda rights being read to him.

I’m still working on pulling the motion myself to post it here, but please understand that I am not a journalist for a living. I’m a practicing attorney that has other obligations, and cannot always fully devote my attention to pulling every document filed in the three concurrent prosecutions in this case. It actually takes a lot of time and effort within each state’s court system to pull documents, and this case has special precautions around it as a high-profile case that sometimes make it more difficult.

If anyone reading has already located or pulled the motion (I believe Dickey’s motion to suppress this evidence was filed two days ago, 2/25), please send it to me and save me some time! Otherwise, will do my best to locate it and post it here by this weekend.

In the meantime, here is an MSM article from MSN citing the 23-page filing by Dickey, which does not contain a link to the filing itself and actually has a message within the article that says “sorry, we couldn’t load this embedded content.” It’s possible the filing was only immediately available to journalists/press or anyone local who could do an in-person records search at the Blair County courthouse, but I will continue my search to locate the PDF of the filing itself later tonight or tomorrow.

MSN Article Citing Dickey’s 23-page motion to suppress

Reading the summary of the claims made in the filing from the available articles, this is exactly what it sounded to me like KFA was implying —that there was some sort of chain of custody issue with the bag and where it was searched. It did sound to me initially like she was saying it had been illegally searched in a car outside of the McDonald’s, which led to my own speculation about “what car?” I revised my original account to remove the word vehicle, as that was my own speculation regarding where the bag could have been brought in from and what KFA meant when she said “car.”

It seems clear now that KFA was saying that from the evidence they’ve seen so far, Luigi’s defense team at least believes that the bag was taken and searched somewhere that they can’t establish chain of custody for—perhaps it was taken outside to a police car, or some other location within police control and away from where Luigi was detained.

According to the articles that are citing the 23-page motion, Dickey alleges officers “repacked” the bag, which is precisely what I was taking from the interaction between KFA and Kaplan surrounding the bag and the idea that it was taken somewhere else, then brought back inside the McDonalds or to the police station at a later time.

Here are some social media screenshots from Luigi accounts that picked the story up so that I have an image for this post:

I just love a great vindication, so I had to take a moment and share this. Don’t lose the forest for the trees here—the key point and takeaway from the discussion I overheard between KFA and Kaplan is that KFA was indeed indicating they believed the bag was searched in another location, which if true, opens the possibility to evidence tampering. Whether Luigi’s defense team believe it was a police car or another location, remains to be determined!

Remember that the prosecution was given two more weeks (from the hearing date of 2/21, which would be March 7th) to turn over additional evidence, which KFA was adamant needed to include the rest of the Altoona police officer’s’ bodycam footage and the search warrant & affidavits for the bag allegedly found on LM at the McDonald’s. We shall see what they turn over at that date, and whether KFA files additional Motions to Compel or motions for extensions/continuance of the currently calendared June 26th motion hearing.

Alright, I have to get back to some other legal work, as well as my upcoming post on the silence of Luigi’s family, so stay tuned and subscribe!

Subscribe now

Get 20% off for 1 year

Having flown across the country from Los Angeles for this hearing and dedicating the entire week to planning for it, I was determined to be one of the members of the public let inside the courtroom. No stone was left unturned in my approach—there were plans, backup plans, and backup plans for the backup plans. This was not some haphazard, spur of the moment idea I put together for the hell of it. I have been truly gripped by this case and every aspect of it since December 4th, 2024, due the incredible intersection of law, politics, and American culture it occupies.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Luigi also happens to be perhaps the most objectively attractive human male I’ve ever seen in real life, or that his face activates something in my own Sicilian & Italian DNA that I did not know was possible. I’m a happily married woman who was the only one in line not dressed for the hearing as if I were going on a first date with him—but I get it. He’s incredibly handsome, you’d have to be blind or delusional not to be able to see why he has such a huge female fanbase.

I arrived in New York City on Sunday, 2/16/25, and planned my week out on Monday, 2/17/25, which was President’s Day. As such, the courthouses were closed, so I waited until Tuesday to go down to the NY State criminal courthouse in person and try out my Plan A. In California (where I practice), it’s possible to sometimes obtain an “attorney observer” pass for cases if you ask ahead of time. It’s totally up to the discretion of the judge and not guaranteed at all, but it’s something you can try to get approved. When I told my husband that I was going to test this out and see if they had anything similar in NY, he mocked me for thinking that this would be a viable option.

He was, of course, correct. I was told in no uncertain terms—once politely by a court clerk and then rudely by a security guard—that there is no preference for attorneys, and I’d have to wait in the general public line if I wasn’t press. Fine, no problem. Can’t say I didn’t “shoot my shot,” as the kids say. I accepted that I would have to get in line very early, but still wasn’t sure how early. The hearing had initially been scheduled for 9:00am, but all updates from Luigi’s legal team on their newly-launched website indicated it had been re-slated for the 2:15pm docket. With this in mind, my Plan B was to go to the courthouse again on Thursday (2/20/25), getting as much information from the court clerks and security guards as possible regarding the security procedures in place and how they were going to arrange the general public line.

I spoke to six security guards and four court clerks on Thursday, every time being given some version of the line “we have not yet been briefed on security measures for tomorrow, and anything is subject to change.” This told me that they had in fact already been briefed, and part of that briefing was to tell any members of the public seeking details that they had not been briefed yet. From the few comments that were not completely useless I was able to cobble together from these interactions, I concluded that the doors would be opening at 8am, that the hearing was definitely scheduled for 2:15pm docket, and that they were preparing for a lot of people. While I was there, I observed security measures already being put in place, such as barricades on the ground floor and 15th floor (where the hearing had been moved to from its originally scheduled, smaller room on the 13th floor).

Based on the comments from a security guard about doors opening at 8am and “the earlier the better,” I formulated my plan to be in line at 3am. There was just one problem—I had forgotten just how effing brutal New York winters are. I was there during the coldest week of the year, when NYC was colder than Alaska. It had snowed; the sidewalks were ice. As much as I tried to tell myself, ‘oh, I’ll just film content and work while I wait,’ it began to dawn on me how delusional this was. My hands would be too frozen to type, and I wasn’t about to hold my phone on a selfie stick or my Canon or my iPad or my laptop out in the dark, freezing cold at 3 AM.

Also, I’m 4’9.” I’ve been mugged before. There was no way to really know how this line was going to compare to other high-profile cases, and whether I’d be standing alone or with others. That’s when a friend suggested something I hadn’t even thought of: pay someone to hold my place in line. The friend told me that friends of theirs did this for special, limited seating events in the city, and that there was a whole industry in the city built around the need for this service. I was incredulous, but also very intrigued. Was this really possible?

Sure enough, it was. I lucked out and found someone who had done this exact thing before at the same courthouse for another high-profile case. We agreed on 3:30am, and I’d relieve him at 7:30am. I barely got any sleep the night before, finally laying down around 3am with a 6am alarm set. My mind raced with the anticipation and lead up, hoping that I hadn’t made a huge mistake by trusting this to someone I didn’t know, rather than standing in the line myself at 3am.

II: Waiting in Line and The Battle for the Front

When my alarm went off at 6am, the first thing I did was check in with my line-holder: How’s it look?

“I’m #5 in line, and there are other line holders here.”

A wave of relief washed over me—he was number 5 in line! I was definitely going to make it inside! I wasn’t insane to hire him, other people had also done it, and he actually came through and secured me a spot that would ensure I was let into the courtroom. At the December 23rd hearing, 24 people were let in from the public, and that hearing had been announced fairly last-minute with not nearly as much time for the public to prepare for it. Something told me that either exactly 24 people or less would be permitted inside this time.

At 7:30 when I relieved him, I heard a bunch of people murmuring something along the lines of “not going to lie, that was really smart” or “I can’t even be mad, I wish I’d thought of that.” There were already what appeared to be close to 40 people in line by this point, which I was astonished by. I already knew half of them were not going to get inside, and we still had 6.5 hours before the hearing for more people to show up.

And show up they did!

I’ve never seen anything like what I experienced in line for this hearing at any courthouse, for any other case in my life. I don’t think even the Trump sentencing or the Depp v. Heard case had anywhere close to this amount of general public trying to get inside. By the time the doors opened at 8am, there had to be almost 60 people lined up. A security guard who I recognized from having spoken to the previous day made an announcement that he was going to “call upstairs” to see if he could get us lined up on the 15th floor where the hearing was, and “out of his lobby.” This was of course ideal, we wanted to be lined up right outside the courtroom door and not risk being forced to wait in the lobby the entire time and something happening with the line order as we were redirected upstairs.

Alas, something did happen with the line order anyway. When we were let inside, we were split into two lines to go through the metal detectors. It was at this point that some less-than-scrupulous people in line seized the opportunity to run past some of us who were further ahead in line as we had to wait for our bags from the metal detectors. A paperclip in my jacket pocket (my friend’s borrowed winter coat, so her paperclip) forced me to go through the detector a second time, losing another precious 30 seconds to some shameless people in the other line who were running to the elevators ahead. When it was all said and done, the way the chips landed on the 15th floor, I ended up #12 in line.

For a brief moment I considered confronting the people who had snuck ahead, but decided against it as we still had so many hours together in line, and I was fairly certain #12 would still be let inside. My gut was telling me that they wouldn’t let less than 20 people in, but if I had been one of the people around number #20, you can bet your ass I would’ve made a scene and shamed them into moving back to their original order. If those people weren’t going to fight for it, I wasn’t going to fight on their behalf, so I accepted by 12th place spot and tried to get comfortable for the next 6 hours in that courthouse hallway with these people.

It felt like every 5 seconds, another person rounded the corner from the elevator to join the line. They all had the same look of shock and disbelief that the line was already as long as it was, clearly thinking they had gotten there plenty early enough for a 2:15 hearing. By 10:30am, there were nearly 100 people in a line that wrapped entirely around the hallway. It wasn’t long after this that we began to see some Oscar-worthy acting performances of people coming up to those of us in the front of the line, giving us various sob stories about why we should let them cut ahead of us.

Among my favorites were “my cousin and I flew all the way from L.A. for this,” and one group of women who relentlessly tried cutting no less than 4 separate times, who kept saying “no, no, no, you don’t understand, we were here before.” Myself and a few other women in the first 20 people basically took turns fighting people off and telling them where the end of the line was. Most people tried to save face and feign ignorance, as if they didn’t understand they’d cut in front of the beginning of the line, quickly taking the L and going to the back. Others (like the group of women who tried 4 times) were determined for their wills to prevail over ours. They were destined to fail as obviously, those of us who were the type of person to have planned so much better than them and arrived so much earlier, had much stronger wills.

On the fourth and final time that I had to argue with this group of women, I told them that they were not going to accomplish their goal, and they needed to leave without coming back another time. Another woman told them that everyone knew what they were trying to do, no one was going to let it happen, and they needed to give it up. This finally prompted one of the group of attempted cutters to snap, yelling at both of us that “we didn’t work there” and that she “was sick of our voices.” I responded by saying “then move, bitch, and you won’t have to hear us anymore.” This was the only time I cursed or lost my cool at someone, but I must say it was a great line and it had the desired effect—they finally left for good.

But I have to say that my absolute favorite thing was seeing the fully suited-up attorneys who started coming onto the floor one by one around 12pm, trying the “attorney observation” line that my husband had (rightfully) mocked me for thinking would work. At least I went in on Tuesday and tried it ahead of time—not even I have the cojones to think I could pull that at 12pm the day of the hearing with over a hundred people in line. I could hear their impassioned pleas, trying so hard with the security guards.

“I was just downstairs for a hearing and wanted to observe…”

“But I’m an attorney…”

“I’m here for work, I’m a lawyer…”

“Surely I don’t have to wait in the general public line, I’m an attorney…”

Words cannot describe the full extent of the joy, satisfaction, and schadenfreude I felt as each and every one of them was invariably told exactly what I was told on Tuesday by the more blunt security guard: “Sorry, no one gives a shit if you’re a lawyer, it doesn’t mean anything for this line.” It still brings such warmth to my heart even now, recalling the look on their faces. The whole trip may have all been worth it just for that, honest to God. They were so sad in their little suits as they mouthed to each other “this is crazy” and “no way we’re getting in.” Indeed—to both sentiments.

There weren’t all jerks trying to cut in line, though. There were many wonderful, kind, compassionate people there as well, who were happy for those of us in the front, knew they were not going to get inside, but stayed all day for the experience, the camaraderie, and to show their support for Luigi. One such person, a woman who also had flown from Souther California, approached our group to congratulate us on the job well done fighting off the others. She raised the sleeve of her hot pink t-shirt that read “Mind Your Own Uterus” to reveal a huge, floral shoulder tattoo in which the words “Deny,” “Depose,” “Defend,” hand been inked into the petals. This reveal prompted several others in line to show me their Luigi-themed tattoos.

I have to say, I felt a bit inadequate for a second there. “But wait a second,” I heard my inner voice say… “you’re the one getting into this hearing.” It was like an internal Lord of the Rings, King Rohan moment: Remind me who I am! You are the only attorney getting in this courtroom today! (Well, at least the only one who isn’t on the actual defense or prosecution team.)

In total, five different reporters interviewed me from the line. One said NBC, one said CBS, one said Fox 5, one said TMZ, and another said he was a freelancer writing a book with Simon & Schuster. They all asked the same question: Why are you here? I answered all of them the same way—by asking them to look around, and tell me if they’d ever seen anything like this before. “No,” they’d say, “Never.”

“That’s why I’m here, I wanted to see it with my own eyes.”

III: KFA’s Arrival and The Final Countdown to 2:15pm

One of the most heart-racing and exciting moments of the afternoon was when Luigi’s attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo (KFA) arrived on the 15th floor around 1:45pm. The instant the elevators opened, we could see hundreds of flashes going off at the press area that was positioned directly in front of the elevators to catch everyone as they entered the courtroom. I knew it had to be KFA, because they would not be bringing Luigi in this early in front of all of the general public. Soon, I could see KFA walking towards us, towards the end of the hallway where the clerk’s office was, surrounded by security guards and police officers on each side of her.

When everyone realized it was her, the entire floor erupted into thunderous applause and cheering! The energy in that hallway was unlike anything I’ve ever felt. KFA walked down the full length of the hallway, to cheers and clapping the entire way. And I have to say…it looked like she was absolutely fucking loving it. Her face had the expression that I imagine was on mine watching all those lawyers get turned away by the security guards—a mix of well-deserved pride and satisfaction.

Someone who was absolutely NOT effing loving it, however, was who I gathered to be the main security guard in charge. I base this presumption on nothing other than the fact he was the only one who screamed and yelled at KFA as well as all of the members of the public, chastising both her and us. He yelled to KFA “Counsel, have some respect! This is a courtroom! You’re not going to do this here!” Before turning his wrath upon us, shouting that “if that happens again I will clear this entire floor and not a single person will get inside! Show some respect! Have some decorum!”

This threat shut everyone up really quickly, and the whole episode brought everyone who had been seated on the floor or a bench to their feet. We still had about a half hour to go, but the adrenaline was pumping, the energy was bursting with anxious anticipation and the excitement that had been mounting all day. Everyone was now on their feet, and those of us in the first 20-24 people began gathering our belongings so there would be no delay when they were ready to lead us in.

For the remaining 25 minutes, every time the elevator doors opened, the press area went crazy with flashes hoping to catch Luigi being brought in—only to keep getting photos of the same four bald police officers over and over again. Chelsea Manning was among the members of the general public line who, if I had to guess, would say was somewhere around number 60-70ish in line. She, too, had arrived fully suited up, but appeared to know she was not going to make it inside. A few of us humorously discussed whether anyone would give up their seat for her, concluding that she was one of the few people we’d entertain the thought for, but no.

Finally, the moment was upon us, and the police and security guards summoned our section, The Front of The Line, from behind the podium and roped area where we had been waiting since they let us inside at 8am. I have to say that I was a bit unprepared for how it felt to walk through that gauntlet of press cameras. It was a bit intimidating, to say the least. I don’t know how people get used to that; I tried to keep my head down and walk as quickly as possible through it. We were ushered into the very back two rows on of the left side of the courtroom (facing the front), and the last row on the right side. By my count, less than 24 made it inside. I believe it was between 20-22, but I could have miscounted. I am the short one with glasses, red backpack, wearing a blanket as a dress.

IV: The Hearing

It all worked out such that I was seated at the closest possible seat to the entrance/exit of the courtroom, and the group who had cut in front when we went through the metal detectors (causing me to go from #5 to #12), had much worse seats with a terrible view. Luigi was brought within 3 feet of me, directly in front of me, on both his entrance and exit. Once we were allowed in, the entire hallway was cleared of all remaining members of the public. They did not permit anyone to stay on the floor, and waited until it was fully emptied before Luigi was escorted into the courtroom.

Everyone has seen the photographs by now, but he was wearing a similar outfit to his December 23rd hearing, just with different colors. This time he wore a dark, forrest green sweater (instead of a maroon one) over a white collared shirt, with khaki/light colored slacks. Luigi sported the now famous, light brown leather loafers with no socks. He was completely shackled hand & foot, in addition to having a bulletproof vest on top of his sweater.

There were two police officers on each side of him, four total who each had their hands on either his arms or his shoulders as they brought him from the elevator through the courtroom doors and to the defense table on the left of the courtroom to join his attorneys.

I’m going to block quote my own previous description of him from my Recap post of my week in NYC leading up to the hearing:

Imagine that I’m placing my hands on your shoulders and looking deeply into your eyes, the fate of the world and all of humankind depending on what I’m about to tell you…take a deep breath…and hear me: He is even more handsome in person!

I know this may be difficult to believe or accept for some, but I assure you that it is the truth. To quote Jesus, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!” Luigi Mangione is More. Handsome. In. Person. His hair had grown longer and even more luxurious. His brows were the brows of the Roman Gods of his ancestors. He was taller than both of the guards who held each of his arms, he has to be at least 6’1’’. His jawline, 5 o’clock shadow, and lips, were out of a Caravaggio painting.

This hearing was very different from any hearing I’ve attended in the past. This case continues to defy legal norms in ways that even seasoned criminal defense lawyers like KFA find astonishing.

Luigi Shackled For Entire Hearing

The first order of business was a request from KFA for her client to be unshackled during the hearing. The judge denied the request, citing unspecified “security concerns.” KFA pressed the issue, making an impassioned plea about the prejudicial nature of the optics of Luigi remaining shackled the entire hearing. She argued that he had been a model prisoner, with no disciplinary infractions. KFA further stated that she meets with him multiple times per week at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, where he is not shackled during those visits. Moreover, the courtroom was packed with at least 30 armed officers, standing at nearly every row. What possible security risk did he pose?

Judge Carro dismissed her arguments again without addressing them directly, vaguely implying that law enforcement itself had insisted he remain shackled. No explanation was given beyond “security concerns.”

At this point, KFA formally placed her objections on the record. She reiterated that Mangione was being subjected to extremely unusual and prejudicial treatment, stating outright that in her 30 years of practice, she had never seen anything like it.

Of course, the denial of Luigi’s shackles being removed resulted in one of the most iconic photos of American legal and pop cultural history:

The Prosecution’s Continued Delays in Discovery

The hearing then moved to the discovery dispute, which has been a major point of contention. The prosecution has been granted two separate extensions to turn over evidence to the defense. And yet, at the time of this hearing, they had still not turned over the bulk of it.

Prosecutor Kaplan was the first to speak, attempting to spin the situation to make it sound as though substantial evidence had been produced. He stated that a hard drive had been turned over to the defense on January 24, but was indeterminate about its contents. From what little detail he provided, it sounded to me like some security footage from Pennsylvania and heavily redacted civilian witness statements. Kaplan then stated that just that morning, shortly before the hearing, the People had turned over some redacted search warrants and affidavits.

KFA was not having it.

She launched into a devastating rebuttal, making it clear that Kaplan’s statement was misleading at best. She argued that his answers were legally untenable, and the prosecution’s delays were not normal or justifiable under the law. Then, in what was perhaps the most shocking revelation of the hearing to me, she stated that the defense had still not been given access to the so-called “manifesto” (which KFA referred to instead as a “journal”), which the prosecution itself has repeatedly cited as crucial evidence.

Think about that for a moment.

The NYPD Chief of Police and Mayor Eric Adams have already participated in a 40-minute HBO documentary, where they hired actors to read excerpts of this “manifesto.” They have made it available to the public in a highly produced and edited format—but have still not turned it over to Luigi’s defense team.

KFA obliterated the prosecution on this point. She called it a gross miscarriage of justice—one so egregious that it called into question the entire integrity of the case. How could the state justify giving evidence to a television network before the defendant’s own attorneys had seen it? This means paid actors received copies of the prosecution’s key evidence before the accused’s defense attorney has.

Suddenly, loud cheering, yelling, clapping, and chanting could be heard from outside.

“Luigi! Luigi! Luigi!”

“Free Luigi! Free Free Luigi!”

It was coming from the 1-4pm protest rally going on outside the courthouse. You could clearly hear them from the inside, but only briefly, as they quieted down after the second chant—as if ordered to by police.

Pattern of Withholding Evidence

KFA then moved beyond the “manifesto” and detailed how the defense has received very little evidence from law enforcement. Despite claims that there were “thousands of hours” of security footage, the defense had received almost none of it. At this point, Prosecutor Kaplan interrupted to state that this was not true—they had turned over evidence from the Altoona Police Department.

KFA immediately shut this down, clarifying that the only thing they had received from Altoona PD was one single bodycam recording, from one officer at the McDonald’s arrest location. There had been at least 12 officers on scene, yet only one bodycam had been provided. The angle, she explained, was useless—it showed nothing relevant.

Furthermore, KFA stated that the search of Luigi’s car at the McDonald’s was not legal, and that she had still not received paperwork for the search warrant. NOTE: The next ten sentences have been revised to better reflect exactly what I heard. There is no mention in either the NY state or the federal criminal complaint of a car, or of Luigi renting or driving a car. However, I distinctly heard KFA refer to the Altoona police “coming in from the car.”

Now, it is possible that KFA misspoke, or that she meant the police cars and not necessarily Luigi’s car, but I heard the word car said. And KFA seemed to me to be implying that the police had recovered a trove of incriminating evidence from somewhere other than Luig’s person, somewhere she was implying they did not have the right to search. She kept saying that the defense had not been provided with the paperwork showing the proper warrants were obtained and probable cause existed for the search that resulted in the claimed bag of evidence with the “manifesto” and “ghost gun.”

If they had all been on him, on his person, there should have been no issue with probable cause, as there was a national manhunt underway for him and the complaint states he was recognized by a McDonald’s employee and the police. So, it did sound to me as if the defense was indicating the bag had been brought in from the outside somewhere. Whether they think that was by the police from their police car, I don’t know, and that’s why KFA wants to see all 12 officers from the Altoona arrest’s bodycams.

In my opinion, whether there was another car or KFA was only referring to the police coming inside from their police cars, if the bag was taken anywhere or searched in any outside location, this opens the door to the possibility the evidence was planted. This was not officially alleged by anyone at the hearing, that’s just my own speculation, and where my mind would be going if I were on his defense team. It sounded to me like KFA was questioning some sort of chain of custody issue withe the bag, and indicating that it may not have been searched inside the McDonald’s in Luigi’s presence.

Kaplan, his voice sounding a bit hesitant, responded that they were still “redacting” evidence and that they needed two more weeks to finish the process. KFA was not impressed with answer, and stated for the record that the prosecution had spent months reviewing, organizing, and redacting evidence, yet expected the defense to be able to review it in time for the next motion hearing if they provided it to the defense in two more weeks.

KFA is very good at the performance aspect of being a great attorney. I mean that as a great compliment, it’s kind of the hardest part for a lot of us. You can have a great legal mind or be a great legal writer and even be above average or highly competent at public speaking + persuasion and be a great lawyer. KFA has all of those, the experience of someone who worked as a federal prosecutor for nearly three decades, and she is great at the performance of giving the courtroom exactly what people picture when they imagine a zealous advocate who truly believes in the injustice being committed against their client. Her every sentence and the tone in which she speaks convey exactly what you would want your attorney to convey if you were the one in Luigi’s chair, handcuffed at your wrists and ankles with a bulletproof vest on.

“The sooner we schedule it, Counsel, the sooner you can have your suppression hearing.”

At this point, the discussion shifted to scheduling the next motion hearing. I guess I should briefly explain what a motion hearing is. A motion hearing is when the judge considers legal requests (motions) from the prosecution or defense that could significantly impact the case. These motions can request things like suppressing evidence, dismissing charges, compelling discovery, or modifying bail or custody conditions.

This hearing on 2/21 was a motion hearing, where significant discovery was supposed to be turned over to the defense. KFA was objecting to the scheduling of the next motion hearing with the bulk of the evidence still not having been turned over by the prosecution. KFA objected to scheduling anything until the defense had received the full discovery. She argued that moving forward prematurely would be unfair and a violation of Mangione’s due process rights.

Prosecutor Kaplan then spoke, reminding the Judge that he had already stated the redacting was ongoing but that they would turn it over in two weeks. Judge Carro ruled against KFA’s opposition to the next motion hearing being scheduled, under the rationale that she would have the evidence in two weeks, and if the prosecution blew that deadline, she could make the appropriate motions for another extension at that time. KFA accepted his decision in a professional and deferential manner, but stated for the record anyway that she remained concerned that the timeline was unrealistic, given the sheer volume of evidence that had not yet been disclosed.

Judge Carro then said something I agreed with, which was to tell KFA that he understands why she wants to delay the next motion hearing, but if they do that, it just delays the point at which she can have her suppression hearing. A suppression hearing is a pre-trial hearing that happens once the defense team has received and reviewed all the evidence provided to them by the prosecution, in which the defense argues for the suppression (inadmissibility) of an any evidence that was either obtained illegally or violates the client’s Constitutional rights. You want the case to keep moving in a timely manner, there is a Constitutional right to a speedy and public trial, and you don’t want to cause unnecessary delay. At the same time, KFA and team need adequate time to review the evidence so they can submit the appropriate motions in time for the next hearing.

Judges are skilled at being neutral, which is difficult for a lot of us with strong opinions one way or another. He did the most neutral and fair thing he could do, which is give the prosecution the two weeks to get it in as they claimed they would in their oral and written filings today, schedule the next motion hearing so that the whole hearing wasn’t a huge waste of time, but warn the prosecution that if they don’t get it in in those two weeks, the defense will be filing motions to delay the next motion hearing that he would be sympathetic to.

My official prediction is that the prosecution will turn over some of the NYPD and NY FBI evidence, in highly redacted form, but still but turn over all of it, which will prompt KFA to file motions to compel as well as motions to extend the date of the next hearing.

A Stunning Exchange Over Federal Custody: “There’s not even an indictment.”

Then, one of the biggest surprises for me of the hearing happened. Judge Carro turned to Prosecutor Kaplan and asked why Mangione was still being held in federal custody at MDC Brooklyn.

Judge Carro seemed under the impression that the state had been working on a deal with the federal prison to transfer Mangione to state custody, since the state prosecution was set to move forward first. At this moment, KFA turned and locked eyes on Kaplan. She gave one of the hardest death stares towards the prosecution table I’ve ever seen in a courtroom.

Kaplan visibly hesitated, it was clear something had been communicated to the Judge that had not been communicated to KFA or the rest of Luigi’s legal team. Kaplan then stated, in a much lower voice than he had previously spoken, that while the state trial was proceeding first, there were currently no plans to transfer Mangione to state custody.

Judge Carro did not like this answer. It was clear that he had been told something different by someone. The judge repeated his question—but Kaplan had the same automatic, verbatim response. That’s when Judge Carro dropped the bombshell that had been at the back of my mind this entire time:

“You are not even holding him on an indictment. There is still no indictment. You’re holding him in federal custody on just a complaint.”

To those unfamiliar with federal criminal law, this might not seem significant. But it is. Federal prosecutors had been given two extensions to obtain an indictment, and they still had not done so. A grand jury indictment is one of the easiest things to get—hence the famous saying that a prosecutor “could indict a ham sandwich.”

The fact that they still have not secured an indictment suggests major problems with their case to me. It suggests to me that they need way more time than they realized to very carefully edit, redact, and curate the evidence they present to the grand jury, which may be difficult if there is a lot of contradictory or exculpatory evidence, which legally must be turned over to the defense.

This exchange about Luigi still being held on nothing but a complaint in federal custody led to Judge Carro calling a sidebar, where KFA & Kaplan, each with another attorney from their team, approached the bench.

A Chaotic Ending

After an approximately seven-minute sidebar with both legal teams, the attorneys returned to their desks, and KFA made one final plea: for just two moments alone with Luigi, as they had not been given that, and she needed to speak to him for at least two minutes alone without the presence of police officers. This caused the rows of his general public supporters (of which I belonged) to exchange looks with each other. As a lawyer, it is unfathomable to me to hear that they have yet to be given even two minutes purely alone with each other.

Judge Carro seemed a bit taken aback, I think because of how bad it sounded, but he was not moved to oblige her with time in a private room or the judges quarters. He told her that she’d have to “do it now,” meaning try to get a quick two minutes in with him at the defense desk in a public courtroom before the police escorts came to take him.

The hearing then ended quite abruptly, and something that stood out to me greatly was that there was no formal calling of an end to the hearing. In California, all matters that are called in front of a magistrate are officially called to order and put on the record, and when the hearing is over, the matter is officially adjourned or closed, and that is stated for the record.

Judge Carro didn’t formally close the proceedings, he set what sounded to me like June 26th as the next motion hearing, with what I think I heard as May 15th for a deadline for motions to be filed. Then he simply stood up and left with no announcement or statement closing the hearing and taking it off the record.

When I relayed this to my husband (who is also a lawyer), he immediately said that he would put money on the fact that they didn’t formally call the hearing to an end so that they could record or listen to whatever was said between KFA & Luigi in those two minutes, and later claim that it was not off the record because the official record hadn’t been called to a close. That thought had not independently occurred to me, but I find it highly plausible and not at all difficult to believe.

At this time Luigi was hauled out by officers, handled roughly, his arms held tightly on both sides. As he was led past the two rows of public supporters, he briefly made eye contact with our row, and with me. I tried to give my best reassuring smile that wasn’t creepy, something that I hoped would say “stay strong” —or something like that.

I don’t know how to explain how I feel about him, it’s not romantic in any way. It’s sort of like a defensive sibling or cousin, who is also a lawyer. That doesn’t mean I don’t have eyes and can’t see how, to quote Zoolander, “really, really, ridiculously good looking” he is. It’s just mind boggling to me as someone with a giant Sicilian-American family that he with all those cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. he doesn’t have a single family member supporting him. Not a single one even saying, “hey, you know, he’s innocent until proven guilty.” This is another red flag for my spidey-senses, that I have another article coming out about soon.

He didn’t smile in any way when he entered or left the courtroom, but he gave our row what I would describe as a solemn acknowledgment in recognition of those who had come to see how the proceedings were unfolding in person. He did also look at one of the rows of general public on the other side, but I could not see the facial expression he gave them as his head was turned to them.

He looked towards them, towards us, and then he was gone.

The police officers cleared the courtroom as quickly as possible while keeping it orderly, and we once again had to walk through a gauntlet of press with flashing camera lights on the way out to the elevators.

A mentioned earlier, there had been a protest scheduled in Luigi’s support at 1pm outside the courthouse, which of course I was not able to attend when it was at it’s busiest since I was waiting inside to gain entrance to the hearing, then attending the hearing. There were still quite a few people at the protest by the time I got out to the front and exited on Centre St., and I walked around talking to various supporters.

Subscribe so you don’t miss my upcoming deep dives, including going count by count down the federal criminal complaint, as well as what my impressions were from the protest. Or you could become a paid subscriber and think of it like sending me one cup of coffee a week—because I’m drinking a lot of it doing my Luigi Mangione legal journalism on top of actually having to continue practicing law (the worst!). The Luigi Special is $4/month!

Get 20% off for 1 year

Subscribe now

Wanted to provide a quick recap of the week and hearing within 24 hours of landing back in LA, with a preview of some of the deep dives and articles to come.

First and foremost, I will answer what I know to be everyone’s most pressing question, as it is the one I received the most in my DMs: Is he as handsome in real life as he is in the photographs and videos?

Imagine that I’m placing my hands on your shoulders and looking deeply into your eyes, the fate of the world and all of humankind depending on what I’m about to tell you…take a deep breath…and hear me: He is even more handsome in person!

I know this may be difficult to believe or accept for some, but I assure you that it is the truth. To quote Jesus, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!” Luigi Mangione is More. Handsome. In. Person. His hair had grown longer and even more luxurious. His brows were the brows of the Roman Gods of his ancestors. He was taller than both of the guards who held each of his arms, he has to be at least 6’1’’. His jawline, 5 o’clock shadow, and lips, were out of a Caravaggio painting.

Now that that’s out of the way, here is how I spent my week in NYC leading up to the Friday (2/21/25) hearing:

Sunday (2/16/25):

Flew into NYC Sunday afternoon. I stayed with my lovely friend, Anna, and her extremely accommodating husband, Avinesh. It was absolutely effing freezing, and I had not been able to find a winter coat in LA before I left, so I packed a bunch of giant sweater-poncho-shawl things and borrowed one of Anna’s winter coats. We spent Sunday night in with a deliciously warming home cooked meal, after which I was gifted the most amazing t-shirt by Anna and three of her friends.

Monday (2/17/25):

This was President’s Day and a lot of places were closed or had reduced hours, so this was intended to be a “planning day” where I charted out my path for the week. My goal was to film at every location mentioned in the federal criminal complaint, focusing the most on claims that I find particularly perplexing and difficult to believe.

I also needed to buy a selfie stick because the one I ordered on Amazon sucked, breaking immediately. Do not recommend. Anna and I had a day of working at a coffee shop in Brooklyn, where I charted out each location and attempted to plot the perfect, most efficient subway route ever made! It was just so damn cold, I wanted to avoid being out in it as much as possible. The adorable coffee shop we worked from closed early at 4pm, at which time we packed it up and headed to Dekalb Market, home of the busiest Trader Joe’s on the planet and a giant Super Target where I hoped to find a replacement selfie stick.

This day was a great success for me! I felt good about my plan for the week, found a high quality, perfect selfie stick that was much better than the first one and could hold either my phone or Canon, AND I faced a long-time fear of mine of extremely busy grocery stores. Even when I lived in NYC, I never went to Trader Joe’s, it gave me too much anxiety. I’d buy food at Duane Reade before going into a Trader Joe’s. Anna, however, possesses a complete mastery of grocery shopping at this location, for which I could not have been more grateful. She got all the groceries and ingredients needed for me to make my Mother-in-Law’s crispy tacos for dinner, and was miraculously already standing in line by the time I finished buying my selfie stick at the Target.

Tuesday (2/18/25):

I planned today and Thursday as filming days, with Wednesday in between for working from home on the content that was filmed today/prepping for Thursday. I hit the streets wearing my incredible shirt that had been gifted to me on top of a long sleeve shirt, along with Anna’s winter coat. My goal for today was to get to the furthest uptown locations, which were the Central Park locations and George Washington Bridge (GWB) Bus Terminal, and that’s what I got in, so another very successful day for me. I was going to try and also fit in the hostel they claim Luigi stayed at when I was done filming at Central Park, but it was getting late and I had a dinner date with Anna and and old law school friend, Emily, at American Cut Steakhouse that I didn’t want to be late for, so I cut it and rescheduled it mentally for Thursday.

If you have heard of American Cut Steakhouse, it’s probably because it is somewhat viral for its Happy Hour special called a “NYC Happy Meal,” which consists of a Caesar salad, truffle fries, and a martini. I’m somewhat of a Caesar salad, french fry, and martini connoisseur, and have yet to ever have a better martini than the one I make. Still, you can see the appeal. I was told that it was very important we get there right at 5pm when they opened, as apparently this was a very popular spot. It was right in Tribeca, the area my law school is in. Emily was right to advise a 5pm arrival, and I was very pleased with myself for not trying to get in the hostel footage, because I definitely would’ve been super late if I had tried. A younger, dumber me, would’ve tried it.

The Caesar salad was delicious albeit extremely tiny. My suggestion to American Cut would be to serve it on smaller plates so it optically doesn’t feel like we are being given a Caesar salad for an ant. Delicious, though. My favorite Caesars include an egg, this one was perfectly soft boiled. The truffle fries were also very good, about as solid as it comes for truffle fries. My martini…the first one was not nearly filthy enough for me, the bartender that made it had not heard my comment to the other bar tender who I thought was going to make it that I wanted it to “look like disgusting pond scum water,” so, he made it as though it were for a regular person.

The other bar tender noticed my dissatisfaction with the amount of olive juice and provided me more, for which he has my eternal gratitude. Happy Hour pricing on the cocktails lasted until 7pm, so we remained at the bar ordering more drinks until 7pm hit. I got blue cheese martinis, extra filthy, which were delicious. The hostess asked to take a photo of my Luigi shirt, expressing support for him—alas I fear they photographed it after I had spilled whatever light red dipping sauce came with the truffle fries on it.

Wednesday (2/19/25):

Really glad this was planned as a WFH day to go through Tuesday’s footage and work on videos, because a) it was effing freezing out again with intense wind, and b) I was a little hungover from the NYC Happy Meal Happy Hour Filthy Blue Cheese Martini Extravaganza the previous night.

I don’t have any pictures from this day because I just stayed on Anna’s couch all day and put together video clips in iMovie and worked on writing voiceover scripts for them. My cousin Tim and his beautiful wife Natalya live in Brooklyn, where I was staying, and we had dinner together at a wonderful little spot near Anna called Camillo. I hadn’t seen Tim since my Dad’s funeral, and Natalya since I lived in NYC for law school, so we had such an overdue and great conversation that not a single photo was taken. The carbonara was phenomenal, served with the perfect amount of pecorino. I recommend having it with the Montepulciano.

Thursday (2/20/25):

This was officially crunch time, and I did not sleep in late like I had the day before, as I had a lot of filming to get done. Anna warned me that it was supposed to snow around 3pm today; which I sort of took in but didn’t fully process until I found myself at the Midtown Hilton around 2:50pm wondering what it was Anna had told me about 3pm…it hit me right around the moment it started snowing.

The most important locations I wanted to get in this day were the criminal courthouse and the Midtown Hilton, with the hostel on the back burner for if there was time to get to it. I needed to get to the criminal courthouse because I wanted to speak with security guards and court clerks to get an idea about what the security measures and procedures were going to be like for the hearing the next day, and to go myself to the exact floor and courtroom where it was scheduled to be held. I spent about an hour there speaking to various people, some were very helpful and some were extremely rude, but that’s fine. I pieced together as much intel as I was going to get, and headed to film at the Midtown Hilton.

I got off the train at 42nd St/Grand Central and walked from there to the Midtown Hilton, it started snowing right around the moment I exited Grand Central. At first it was very light, but it kept getting heavier and heavier as I walked to 54th and Sixth Avenue. I filmed here for about another hour and half. I considered grabbing a drink at the Hilton bar, but it looked packed with assholes, as a bar at the Midtown Hilton in NYC would be expected to be on a snowy Thursday night. I had been walking around filming inside and out for 1.5 hours, and was sure that several security guards noticed me, and didn’t want to invite any conversation with anyone at the bar, so I left.

By this time it was dark and snowing very heavily, but I was determined to get at least one shot at the hostel Luigi is claimed to have checked into with fake ID and fake name of Mark Rosario. I will be real with you, to this moment I still am not sure if I had the wrong address or I got off at the wrong subway stop or WHAT happened, but when I plotted the route it made it seem like the hostel was only a short walk from exiting the subway. In fact, when I exited and plugged in the address, it was a 30 minute walk. I got about one block from the subway station when the arctic wind hit me in the face along with snow, dripping on my glasses and making it impossible to see. I made an executive decision that the shot in front of the hostel was not worth this 30 minute walk, and ducked my ass right back into the subway from whence I came, headed to back to Anna’s in Brooklyn for the night.

Rarely have I ever been so relieved to get anywhere as I was to get through the door at Anna’s after the time I spent walking in the freezing wind and snow this day. I needed to prep myself for the hearing the next day, which I was planning on waking up at 6am for, and was already running on very little sleep. We ordered in Thai from Anna’s local place, and I did my best to prepare myself for the next day. My nerves kept me up until 3am, though, and I ended up getting only 2-2.5 hours of sleep.

Friday (2/21/25):

DAY OF HEARING! I’m not going to go into great detail here because obviously, I have a much longer article forthcoming devoted entirely to the day of the hearing and the hearing itself. Let me just say, it was one of the most intense and awesome things I’ve ever done. It’s up there with climbing the Brooklyn Bridge to escape being arrested by the police during an Anti-Police Violence rally led by Dr. Cornel West after the police murder of Eric Garner in 2014.

Let’s just say for now that I got in line…extremely early. I had a feeling that the seating for the public was going to be extremely limited, and was determined to make it inside the courtroom for the hearing. By the time the doors opened at 8am, there were already over 40 people in line. Based on the December 23rd hearing, I guessed that 24 people maximum would be permitted inside from the general public. I could be wrong, but by my count, it was less than this time. I believe 20-22 were let in this time, I couldn’t tell for sure in one row if some were press.

I started out #5 in line, but the security guards split the line to enter through to metal detectors, and there was some less than scrupulous order shifting that took place when we got through the metal detectors. I ended up being around #12. I just wanted to be in the top 15 to guarantee a spot, since I guessed that was the minimum number of public they’d let inside. I made it in!!

As it turned out, I was seated at the closest possible spot to the entrance and exit, and Luigi Mangione was brought within three feet of me, directly in front of me, both as they escorted him in and out of the courtroom in shackles—Judge Carro having denied his attorney’s (Karen Friedman Agnifilo/KFA) request to remove them twice as the first orders of the hearing.

There was an extremely strict no camera or recording policy for the general public, only those from the press with pre approved press passes were allowed to take photographs & record inside the hallway, and only still photos with no recording were allowed by select press inside. Thank God, because this how we are able to have the following, most magnificent piece of photographic art I’ve ever seen:

We were told in no uncertain terms by the security guards several times that if anyone from the general public was seen even checking their phones for the time, we would be escorted out of the courtroom. So, I was not going to risk that at all, I had my phone powered entirely off.

There is another article forthcoming breaking down the entire hearing, but in it the Prosecution admitted to still not having turned over the bulk of the evidence from NYPD and NY FBI, and having just turned in “redacted” search warrants and affidavits that morning just prior to the hearing. It was shocking to me to hear that Luigi’s defense attorneys had still not received even a copy, let alone the original, of the so-called “manifesto,” which his attorney referred to as a “journal.”

This is especially shocking, as KFA pointed out, because the chief of NYPD and Mayor Eric Adams have apparently sat down with HBO in some sort of documentary about the case, where they actually hired actors to read out loud from the “manifesto,” meaning some random actors have seen that evidence before Luigi’s own defense attorneys have. This just seems so incredibly idiotic, but then again, that would not be such a great deviation from how NYPD police chiefs and NYC Mayors traditionally behave.

I’ll leave it there for now and tell you everything else, including the second most shocking revelation from the hearing for me, in the next post. It was a short hearing, and when it was over, we were led out of the courtroom very quickly, out to the street where a protest rally in support of Luigi and against the healthcare industry had been taking place since 1pm. I missed the busiest part of it while I was inside for the hearing, but it was still packed when I came out.

Did some filming around the protest, met some avid supporters, and purchased a pink t-shirt featuring various shirtless photographs of Luigi (some of which I had not yet seen!) paired with cutesy hearts from a Luigi t-shirt vendor named Kimberly, who you can order shirts from by going to the link on her Instagram account: free_luigi_tees. Honestly, I wanted the St. Luigi one, which is clearly the superior option, however she didn’t have any more in stock and directed me to order it from her shop.

I saw some news outlet interviewing her, in which the reporter kept incredulously asking her if her “family was supportive of what she was doing,” which I just found absolutely hilarious.

Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE so you don’t miss the next article, which will be my deep dive from the day of the hearing and the hearing itself, including legal analysis. I’m going to keep the first 1-2 totally free but after that some of my more labor and time intensive content will start being for paid subscribers. Take advantage of the extremely cheap paid subscription rate of $4/month with the extension of the Luigi Special below, before it goes all the way up to the normal price of $5/month!

Subscribe now

Get 20% off for 1 year

Oh, and I got sent a video of us entering the courtroom on TikTok in which everyone who gained entrance was being referred to as a “sister wife,” which I also enjoyed very much. There were two males in the group, though, so I am offended at the exclusion of the Brother Wives on their behalf.

Federal Case Update

Federal prosecutors filed their first request for a 30-day continuance on January 6, 2025, with the consent of defense attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo (KFA). This continued the federal Preliminary Hearing to February 17, 2025—which is, of course, TODAY! It’s also President’s Day, which made it highly unlikely that an actual court appearance would occur. Nevertheless, I booked my trip planning on being here from 2/17-2/21, just in case there was a development in the federal case today. Even though courts would be closed, I reasoned there might be something released today either by Luigi’s legal team or a statement from prosectors, even if it was just the announcement of another continuance.

Alas, five days ago on February 12, 2025, federal prosecutors did indeed file for another 30 day continuance, again with the consent of KFA. The bad news is that this bumps the next federal hearing to March 19, 2025, which I will be unable to attend in person due to my own hearing in Los Angeles on March 20th. THE GOOD NEWS is that this leaves me the entire week to dedicate to Luigi’s case and hearing from New Yorkers about their own theories of the case before the state hearing on Friday, 2/21.

I’ll be hitting up all of the key locations involved in the prosecution’s theory of the case, following along with the federal criminal complaint’s claims and timeline of events, while I stop and talk to New Yorkers. Will be experimenting with live streaming and creating a ton of video content, so please follow/subscribe on YouTube!

You can find me with the handle @AbcdEsq_FU!

Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE BELOW for last chance at THE LUIGI SPECIAL!

Get 20% off for 1 year