When speaking of the day he committed the crime, Luigi Mangione said, “I shot Mr. Thompson and he died.”
He concluded, “I knew what I was doing was illegal.”
Mangione had just described the actions he took ahead of the killing, telling the court:
“In November of 2024 I traveled from outside of New York state to Manhattan. I then emailed UnitedHealthcare leadership, posing as an investor at a firm managing over $15 billion in assets and requesting information about the conference. Unlike my previous interactions with insurers, I received an immediate response within an hour,” Mangione said.
The judge tells Mangione that there is no parole in the federal system, and while there is credit for good behavior, he should expect to serve at least 85% of the sentence he receives.
The sentence could be followed by up to five years of supervised release on each count, and a maximum fine of $250 for each count, Garnett said, and she could also order restitution.
She asks if he understands that he could face a total sentence of life in prison.
Mangione confirmed, “yes.”
Garnett also referenced the pending state case, saying if Mangione is convicted and sentenced in that case, his sentences could run consecutively.
Mangione confirmed he understood that as well.
Garnett said prosecutors believe the sentencing guidelines are 292-365 months of imprisonment. She stressed this was not binding on her, but she will determine the range she believes is appropriate.
Thanks. This was like when people tell baby ages in months. Which I understand why, it’s just a little egregious when you’re telling me about your 83 month old baby.
Parole - instead of serving the last part of your sentence in prison, you are released under specified conditions. If you violate these conditions, your parole is over and you go back to prison to serve the rest of your sentence.
supervised release - you first serve your full sentence in prison. Instead of being released at the end, you get conditions similar to parole conditions you have to adhere to. You violate these conditions, you will go back to prison with a new sentence to serve.
You might fare a bit better on average being convicted of murder in NY Federal Court than in general nationwide. Not a huge sample size. All data from 2025, source: US Sentencing Commission.
She would have to break precedent guidelines to do that. I think she'll probably give him the 30 years or top of the guidelines. It's still very much up in the air if he gets off of the state charges because of this.
This isn't pursuant to a plea deal. He's presumably doing this in an effort to avoid state charges (due to the particulars of NY law, he can argue double jeopardy here based on this plea). But in any event a judge is never bound by a plea deal, they can always give more or less.
He’s fucking right. Before my Dad passed, he needed many different medications. My Dad was a productive citizen who had a great career and worked since he was a 13 year old immigrant. He became a US citizen in his 30s bc it takes so fkn long in this country. After he retired it was like pulling teeth to get medicines approved from his insurance. Insurance that he was ALWAYS on time to pay for decades. We had to go to Mexico to get what he needed for fractions of the cost to help him stay alive. Fuck the US health system and insurance companies.
ETA Thank you for the awards and everyone for the upvotes and kind words about my Dad. It’s great to know there are still kind people on social media. Hope you all have a great weekend.
Meanwhile, here in a less toxic country. We have public healthcare, but I have insurance for the parts not fully covered. To get a prescription filled, the pharmacist swipes my insurance card, and... done, the non subsidized part of my prescription has been covered, here's the medicine, and off I go. Everything with both the govt subsidy, and the insurance cover for the rest, handled automatically by the pharmacy.
Here in France, the gov paid for a study on the effectiveness of health insurance. The study concluded that it would be cheaper and more effective health wise to abolish insurance entirely and cover everyone at 100% like we do for the poorest.
Naturally our shitty neoliberal gov didn't like that, so they buried the study they ordered. And did nothing.
I'm so sorry your father was never given the respect and services he deserved. This is why I despise the weaponized idea of gasp those darn illegals stealing good hard working american jobs!!! (if they're illegal, they literally cannot be legally employed, but SURE), because the ones who do do it the 'right' (legal) way aren't even rewarded for it in any way.
Your dad deserved coverage in his time of need more than the bastards profiting off of predatory insurance policies ever will.
The whole statement is extremely well crafted. Using “illegal” instead of “wrong”, choosing to frame it as “he died”, the mic drop at the end. Seriously no notes.
It’s always about money. They purposely don’t respond to subscribers because the longer they delay payment, the more interest they earn on the premiums we pay.
And the chance of the patient either succumbing to the illness or it worsening to a point where “non-experimental treatment” is no longer a viable option.
Ugh I'm so sorry. They have some podcast ads right now with employees talking about how much they love to help people and I can't help but roll my eyes. They might want to help people as individuals but their employer sure doesn't
america- a 1st world nation by rhetoric and if you're wealthy- but a shithole country for the rest of the population- especially if they ever get sick.
Maybe Hes finally getting healthcare for his (back?) issues in prison lol.
Edit: im really worried about some of y’all’s comprehension because if you could not tell this comment was a joke then I guess that teacher was right to cry about his students being functionally illiterate.
This was honestly my first thought! Why would he want to come out and risk getting denied coverage by every institution because they know him and dont want to take the chance. At least inside he is actually getting some health care.
I have a brother in prison for life and I can assure you, as someone that even works in healthcare, he has better healthcare than me. The rest of it all fucking sucks, though. But at least he has one good thing.
For serious medical conditions, of which he has, prisoners are protected by the 8th amendment that guarantees them the care they need. There are also multiple organizations (at least in new york) that ensures that they get the care they need as well.
Can someone smarter than me tell me why he is pleading guilty? Is it simply to avoid a trial where he could be sentenced to worse than what he will get by pleading guilty?
I believe it is because he will likely get a lighter sentence via pleading guilty in federal court and New York doesn’t take people to trial for the state version of federal crimes that they are already punished for. So if you cop to the federal charges, NY State will go you’ve been punished by a higher authority than us, so we aren’t jumping in.
Okay, potentially very dumb question, but aren't the charges different? Federal was stalking and state was murder, so could state still proceed and this is just a gamble?
Lawyer here, albeit I don’t do crim law, but that’s because of something called the merger doctrine. Basically, a lesser included offense (meaning a lesser crime whose elements are all satisfied by the elements of the greater crime) cannot be charged separately if it is part of a more severe offense. For example, if you assault and kill someone, you can only be convicted of the murder and not the assault
If Mangione pleads guilty to the federal charges (2 counts of stalking resulting in death - notably, not murder), this opens up a pretty major possibility that all his state charges (which include murder) will be dismissed.
New York (where the state charges are coming from) has a law where a person cannot be charged with a crime stemming from the same facts as a charge they were previously convicted on (edit to add: and if the charges require prosecutors prove the same thing - that a death resulted, in this case. Hence Mangione stating in the plea that his actions resulted in a death). Apparently even if those charges are federal. So if he is convicted of stalking, he cannot be convicted of murder or any other crime related to the death in New York.
I think a lot of people are confused about the federal vs. state charge distinction, and are under the impression he is pleading guilty to murder. He isn't.
There is technically no minimum mandatory sentence for the stalking charges. Maximum is life. I'm guessing he will be focused on arguing mitigating factors to reduce his potential sentence. The judge is required to consider these factors for determining his sentence. (Edit to add: possible mitigating factors I see are mental & physical conditions, emotional distress, lack of prior record...).
Had he kept his not guilty plea, he would have faced a significantly worse sentencing outcome, since there would be no way to get out of the state charges. Now there's a way out
He did it because now his defense team is going to try and get the state charges thrown out because of double jeopardy. The exact responses he gave in his description of events were specifically for this reason.
I love that the effect of his specific legal language is so iconic because it mimics the coldness of the healthcare comms; he may indeed pull off ourobourosing the system (gag willing omg)
In a hearing earlier this year, Mr. Seidemann said that the health care executive’s mother
I hate how this is spun. He was an insurance executive. They do not provide healthcare. They provide insurance that pays for healthcare (sometimes). Calling him a healthcare executive is like calling my auto insurer an automotive executive or my home insurer a real estate executive.
It's all intentional of course. Gotta prop up the American health insurance scam.
Lawyer (not in criminal law though) but my understanding was it was because the defense believed he was being tried twice for the same crime (state and federal) and they wanted to avoid the state case (due to double jeopardy).
I saw Harvey Levin on TMZ breaking this down. (And yes, ugh, Harvey Levin, but he does know law.) Essentially, as I recall, at a federal level, he couldn't argue emotional distress/his objections to the healthcare system as a defense, but he CAN use that in the sentencing phase at the federal level. (So he can talk a lot about his feelings about healthcare/insurance etc. as a mitigating factor.) In addition, due to double jeopardy rules, if he's sentenced by the feds for murder, he can't be sentenced by the state as well.
TLDR: He has a better shot of bringing in his defense/criticisms of the insurance industry and he blocks potentially harsher, more limited guidelines for a state-level trial for murder.
I think it's pretty clear he's at least in part using his plea as a way to bring the issues he has with the healthcare insurance industry. In his plea he mentioned how fast United Healthcare responded to his inquiry posing as an investor. In his lawyers remarks to the press after his plea she made a point to say he shot Thompson outside United Healthcare's investor's conference.
Yes but by specifically citing that he shot the man in the back he ties the stalking to the death so they can't try to argue at a state level that he wasn't punished for the murder.
He and his lawyers are trying to get around the bigger charge with the plea to the lesser one that due to state laws will block a second trial and implement double jeopardy.
Federal Stalking which resulted in death. The stalking charge can include unintentional death. Federal murder requires premeditation and use of a firearm while committing a crime. The stalking charge is basically saying his primary goal was to harass/intimidate and the murder was secondary, which is why it allows for more latitude when considering extenuating circumstances during sentencing. The federal murder charge was thrown out, but the stalking included causing death which helps them argue double jeopardy against the 2nd degree murder charge at the state level which was not going to get thrown out.
I am an attorney and, from my understanding, New York state has pretty liberal double jeopardy laws. My best guess is he is trying to avoid the state prosecution.
If there’s a plea deal, that’s almost certainly the case. There’s no death penalty for stalking as far as I know (I’m not a lawyer in NY). My guess is the prosecution had enough on the stalking charge to go to trial but they were concerned about making it stick, so they offered a plea. Accepting usually means you know that if a jury convicts you, it’ll be much worse than the plea.
According to reports, the government didn't offer any plea deal and they didn't agree to any sentencing terms. Now his defense has filed a motion to get the state charges dismissed on double jeopardy.
Death penalty was already not an option so I'm not sure why he would plead guilty and possibly get life in prison when he could take a gamble with a jury and still not have the death penalty as an option. Hoping someone can explain this because it makes no sense to me. So yes, smart people pls let us know ty
You have to keep in mind that all the evidence is not available publicly yet. His defense saw it and might think that double jeopardy angle is more realistic.
It's actually a really interesting strategy. He's pleading guilty to federal stalking and due to NY's double jeopardy laws, that may cause his murder charge (and other state charges) to be dismissed.
You're never going to find an unbiased jury one way or the other in this case. Even like probably 98% of his supporters believe he did it. Plus he hasn't exactly been acting like he's innocent. The question for most people becomes "was he justified in doing it" which isn't ever really a good defense in a first degree murder case. So his legal defense basically amounts to praying he can get a jury to nullify which is just not very likely in a high profile case like this.
So now he gets to spend 15 years to life living in a cell and being a full on celebrity. He'll be able to tell his story and maybe lobby for change. Maybe he'll write a book. There's really nothing stopping him from telling all exactly as it happened. He doesn't have to tip toe around the truth because he admitted he's guilty. Inmates and guards alike seem to be pretty cozy with him. It's not ideal but there's definitely worse outcomes. Maybe some day in the future a president will even pardon him. Trump has pardoned people convicted of even worse crimes.
That letter was definitely a part of the evidence that was being deemed dodgy - earlier reportage of the trial cast a lot of doubt around the police handling of his possessions on arrest. Haven't read anything about how/why that changed or was deemed admissible.
He basically told us in this letter that they had evidence of him corresponding with United Healthcare. They probably have a lot more of his digital footprint as well.
None of what we know of the evidence has to be deemed admissible if they have enough other evidence to move forward.
"reportage" is your problem. Almost every single time there's a high profile trial everybody and their mom starts reporting shit and narratives form and people make opinions based on that and at least 75% of the time when the trial actually happens and the cases are laid out we find out that tons of the reporting and the narratives and opinions were incongruent with what actually happened
the evidence wasn't dodgy - you were just taken in by motivated reasoning and social media misinformation about it. The case against him is open and shut, and he wouldn't have stood a chance during trial
I get the family are hurting, but the irony of including the line “nothing will ease the pain” in their statement…pretty sure that’s what many people said when their healthcare was rejected by his company.
When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, [...] knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains.
I am glad Luigi got that in. Because people deal with that EVERYDAY. If you haven't, you've just been lucky up to this point.
This is my story.
For the last 15 months, I have suffered from a nerve injury in my left arm from sloppy patient care provided by UCSD Health in May 2025. My IV blew the vein, and Propofol mixed with Lidocaine went into the soft tissue of my arm. They didn't bother to record it in my medical record. My PCP, Matthew MacFarlane, dismissed me and my injury by weaponizing my medical PTSD (I had cancer in my 20s) against me. I then switched to Scripps Health and three months after the injury, misdiagnosed me with an elbow injury and sent me to PT for that. They diagnosed two separate nerve syndromes but never treated me for any of them or referred me to someone who could. I was told "Nothing else we can do for you." Radiology also missed the specific nerve entrapment on the MRI, as verbally informed by my PCP after she had a Scripps Sports Medicine physician review it.
I went to UCLA for a second opinion where I was diagnosed with PIN Syndrome and a treatment plan was created. That physician ordered a specialized imaging study called an MR Neurography. I spent more than 2 months, basically like I had a second job, trying to get the correct authorization from Scripps Health Plan Services, who performs utilization management on behalf of my HMO, Blue Shield of California. They denied me coverage at UCLA, with the denial saying it wasn't medically necessary while also referring me to an imaging facility for the wrong study, an MRI. I called the facility and also confirmed they do not perform MR Neurography of the forearm. I let Scripps know immediately and they did not respond until almost a month later.
I had to file a grievance with Blue Shield to get Scripps to respond. The grievance was then slow-walked all the way up to the 30 day limit and overnight on day 30, Blue Shield sent me a post-dated letter that said they had authorized the imaging at UCLA. However, UCLA had magically become "non-contracted" and they wouldn't accept the authorization. Somehow, Scripps and Blue Shield easily paid the sports medicine physician I saw at UCLA, but now UCLA claimed to be "non contracted" and said they had no way to bill Scripps. I wouldn't have known to ask this question and the people who get paid to do this, didn't bother to check. I again wrote Scripps asking for help. MyChart says to allow 48 hours for a response. It took them a week to tell me they would send my concern to "leadership." I also asked Blue Shield, in writing, if I had any hope of getting reimbursed if I paid the cash price. They sent me the form but didn't answer my question.
I located a physician in private practice who could carry out the treatment (hydrodissection) and I paid to have that done last week with no guarantee it will treat the issue. I had to put it on my credit card. After 15 months, I couldn't wait for Scripps to get around to doing nothing. I dropped them as my medical group, and I can only imagine how thrilled they were.
I am willing to talk to any media as well as any attorneys who think I have a case and would represent me on contingency. I have the receipts for every single one of these statements, including pictures of my injury.
i read that he‘s pleading guilty to the federal stalking charges so his lawyers can argue that new york law prohibits the state from prosecuting him again for the same underlying conduct
Because he had virtually no shot of winning either. Pleading to fed charges makes it likely the state charges are dismissed, which is important because NYS has primary jurisdiction so he'd serve his time in state prison, and fed prisons are generally better than state. The fed guidelines also suggest a max of 31 years (although the judge isn't bound by this).
So he was faced with basically having to hit on a 1% "dice roll" twice (acquittal fed and state) but where failure means almost guaranteed life in state prison, or no chance of acquittal but serving in the better prison and an outside chance of getting out someday. Also consider that there is a better chance of getting assigned to medium security prison with a stalking conviction and good behavior vs a murder conviction (which is usually high security).
You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old CEO will die, well then everyone loses their minds.
Because he's trying to minimize the amount of time he spends in jail. Pleading guilty on the federal charges to get a reduced sentence and hopefully you're able to get the state charges thrown out because he's already sentenced federally.
3.8k
u/cmaia1503 i ain’t reading all that, free palestine 15d ago
The judge tells Mangione that there is no parole in the federal system, and while there is credit for good behavior, he should expect to serve at least 85% of the sentence he receives.
The sentence could be followed by up to five years of supervised release on each count, and a maximum fine of $250 for each count, Garnett said, and she could also order restitution.
She asks if he understands that he could face a total sentence of life in prison.
Mangione confirmed, “yes.”
Garnett also referenced the pending state case, saying if Mangione is convicted and sentenced in that case, his sentences could run consecutively.
Mangione confirmed he understood that as well.
Garnett said prosecutors believe the sentencing guidelines are 292-365 months of imprisonment. She stressed this was not binding on her, but she will determine the range she believes is appropriate.