With the one-year anniversary of the fatal shooting of a major health-insurance executive nearing, 27-year-old accused gunman Luigi Mangione is heading back to court this week. He’s asking the judge to prevent prosecutors from presenting a 9 mm handgun and a notebook — items seized when he was arrested — at his upcoming state murder trial. If successful, it could significantly weaken the evidence against him, just as the case draws renewed public attention.
Defense Moves to Suppress Weapon and Writings
Mangione’s attorneys argue that the handgun, allegedly matching the weapon used in the December 2024 killing, along with a notebook purportedly containing plans and motives for the crime, were obtained illegally. They claim bag was searched without a warrant and that Mangione was questioned before being read his rights — in violation of constitutional protections.
If the court bars this evidence, prosecutors would lose both the presumed murder weapon and writings that could establish motive — a major win for the defens.
Background: From High-Profile Killing to Courtroom Drama
On December 4, 2024, the CEO of a major U.S. health-insurance company was shot and killed outside a Manhattan hotel. Surveillance video captured a masked man firing from behind — three bullets were fired, striking the executive in the back and leg. Five days later, law enforcement arrested Mangione at a fast-food restaurant in Pennsylvania. When arrested, he carried what officials say was a 3D-printed pistol, along with a backpack containing the notebook and other material prosecutors link to anti-corporate, anti-insurance writings.
Earlier in 2025, a judge dismissed state terrorism charges, leaving murder charges — both state and federal — still pending. The state trial does not yet have a set date, but this week’s hearings will determine whether crucial evidence will remain on the table.
What’s at Stake: Trial Strategy and Public Interest
For prosecutors, allowing the gun and notebook would anchor their narrative: a premeditated assassination motivated by disdain for the health-insurance industry. The notebook reportedly contains language denouncing “the deadly, greed-fueled health insurance cartel” and refers to the killing as targeting “a greedy bastard that had it coming.”
For the defense, exclusion of the items resets the case: without physical weapon evidence or documented motive, the prosecution’s argument becomes more challenging. Legal experts say suppressing such evidence could force prosecutors to rely heavily on circumstantial evidence or other less direct testimony.
