Defense attorneys for Luigi Mangione have filed a motion alleging that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s decision to seek the death penalty in his case is tainted by a conflict of interest stemming from her prior lobbying work for UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the victim’s employer. They argue this violates his due process rights and could impact the fairness of the trial.
In a court filing on Friday, Mangione’s lawyers contended that Bondi’s involvement in the death penalty decision creates a ‘profound conflict of interest’ because she previously served as a partner at Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm that represented UnitedHealth Group. They have asked U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett to bar prosecutors from seeking capital punishment and to dismiss some charges, with a hearing scheduled for January 9. The defense claims Bondi broke an ethical pledge to recuse herself from matters involving Ballard clients for one year after taking office in February 2025.
The case centers on the December 4, 2024, killing of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, who was shot from behind while walking to a Manhattan hotel for an investor conference. Surveillance footage captured the masked assailant, and police arrested Mangione, a 27-year-old Ivy League graduate from a wealthy Maryland family, at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania five days later. He has pleaded not guilty to federal and state murder charges, with the state case carrying a potential life sentence and no trial dates set yet.
Bondi announced in April that she was directing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty, declaring it warranted for a ‘premeditated, cold-blooded assassination.’ The defense argues she has continued to profit from her ties to Ballard through a profit-sharing arrangement, giving her a financial stake in the case. They also point to her public statements, including Instagram posts and a TV appearance, as evidence that the decision was ‘based on politics, not merit’ and has prejudiced the grand jury process.
Mangione’s defense team, led by husband-and-wife attorneys Karen Friedman-Agnifilo and Marc Agnifilo, further alleges that Bondi’s actions, such as a highly choreographed perp walk and the Trump administration’s flouting of death penalty procedures, have violated Mangione’s constitutional rights. They seek to investigate Bondi’s compensation from Ballard and obtain sworn testimony from individuals with knowledge of the matter, aiming to exclude evidence like a gun and notebook found during his arrest.
In response, federal prosecutors have argued in court filings that pretrial publicity does not constitute a constitutional defect and that the defense’s concerns can be addressed through careful jury selection and trial procedures. They contend the conflict of interest claims are a repackaging of previously rejected arguments and do not warrant dismissal of the indictment or preclusion of the death penalty, emphasizing that Congress has authorized such punishments.
The legal battle could significantly impact Mangione’s trial, potentially limiting the government’s ability to pursue capital punishment or exclude key evidence. It has drawn attention due to the high-profile nature of the victim and allegations of ethical misconduct at the Justice Department. The outcome may also influence broader debates on prosecutorial ethics and death penalty procedures in federal cases.
Looking ahead, the January hearing will be a critical juncture for both sides to present arguments before Judge Garnett. Meanwhile, Mangione’s state case continues, with a ruling on evidence suppression expected in May. The defense plans to pursue further discovery on Bondi’s ties, setting the stage for prolonged legal proceedings that could delay trials and shape the final resolution of this complex and contentious case.
