Editor’s note: This is Day 4 of JURIST’s coverage of Mangione’s suppression hearings. Read Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3.
On Day 4 of suppression hearings in the New York state case against Luigi Mangione, Altoona Police Officer Christy Wasser testified that she discovered a pistol, loaded magazine, and suppressor in Mangione’s backpack during a search at the police station. One of Mangione’s defense lawyers, Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, aggressively challenged Wasser’s account, suggesting she had searched the backpack off-camera during transport and then staged the discovery on video at the station—allegations Wasser denied.
Mangione, accused of fatally shooting Brian Thompson, CEO of medical insurance company UnitedHealthcare, faces a nine-count indictment including second-degree murder, where he faces 25 years to life, and multiple weapons offenses. His defense lawyers are seeking to suppress key evidence, including items found during what they argue was a warrantless search of Mangione’s backpack at the Altoona McDonald’s restaurant in Pennsylvania state, as well as statements Mangione allegedly made to law enforcement.
Judge Gregory Carro also addressed mounting tension with the press, defending his decision to seal hearing exhibits from media access. Citing the defendant’s right to a fair trial, Judge Carro stated that releasing body camera footage and other evidence before trial would create “a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial would be prejudiced by pretrial publicity.”
Over approximately six hours, Pennsylvania law enforcement witnesses testified about Mangione’s December 9, 2024 apprehension and subsequent hearing in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Mangione wore a dark charcoal suit and blue plaid button-down shirt. As he customarily does, Mangione casually leaned to his left or right for most of the day’s proceedings.
The first witness, Blair County First Assistant District Attorney Nichole Smith in Pennsylvania, testified that she received a call at “around seven minutes to ten” on the morning of December 9, 2024, while she was in a courtroom in the Blair County Courthouse. Lieutenant Hanelly of the Altoona Police Department told her that officers “believed that they had the individual who was responsible for the shooting in New York City of the CEO in custody in a McDonald’s in Altoona.” He continued that the individual had given police “a fake name” and presented a New Jersey driver’s license he ultimately admitted was not his own. Assistant District Attorney Smith said she stepped out of the courtroom, consulted with District Attorney Peter Weeks, and jointly advised Lieutenant Hanelly that two Pennsylvania charges—tampering with records or identification and forgery under Pennsylvania law—were appropriate.
Assistant District Attorney Smith explained that police officers wrote the formal charges against Mangione, not the District Attorney’s office. District Attorney Weeks reviewed and approved the charges that afternoon. Mangione was charged with forgery, illegally carrying a firearm, tampering with identification documents, possessing criminal tools, and lying to police about his identity. He appeared before a judge for his first court hearing around 6:30 p.m. that evening in a courtroom packed with journalists and police officers.
Reviewing several search warrants prepared by Detective Sergeant Eric Heuston of the Altoona Police Department’s Criminal Investigation Division, Assistant District Attorney Smith testified that Detective Heuston drafted the first warrant, covering Mangione’s belongings, digital devices, clothing, and a buccal swab, with input from Officers Detweiler and Frye and “with the assistance of a member of the New York Police Department,” identified as Detective Oscar Diaz of the Manhattan South Homicide Squad. The warrant allowed police to legally keep the items they had already seized and send them to the New York Police Department.
According to Assistant District Attorney Smith, firearms and ammunition found on someone without a Pennsylvania permit are automatically considered illegal contraband that police can seize. But other items—like digital devices, clothing, and handwritten notes—are considered personal property that must be returned to the defendant unless a warrant shows probable cause connecting them to a crime. Without a warrant, she said, items like the red notebook found on Mangione could have been released as personal property. Mangione’s defense team objected to the prosecution characterizing the notebook as a “manifesto.” Judge Carro overruled the objection for the hearing but cautioned that such inflammatory terminology would “certainly” not be permitted at trial, where it could unfairly prejudice a jury.
Assistant District Attorney Smith also reviewed a second warrant, signed by District Attorney Weeks, authorizing the seizure and transfer of the clothing Mangione wore during his preliminary hearing and transport to the State Correctional Institution (SCI) in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.
The day’s second witness, Officer Wasser, testified about her role in Mangione’s arrest and search. Wasser explained that she was working an 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. patrol shift when she heard a dispatch at approximately 9:15 a.m. reporting a “suspicious person” at the McDonald’s on East Plank Road who resembled “the CEO killer.” She testified that she had seen Fox News coverage of the December 4 Manhattan shooting, including still images and video that described the victim as a healthcare CEO and showed him being shot “on the back side.” She said she understood the New York case to be a homicide and believed the suspect had used a handgun with a suppressor.
Body camera footage showed Officer Wasser entering the McDonald’s just before 9:45 a.m. She acknowledged that she did not activate her body camera before entering, and testified that she only activates her camera when she is “interacting with the public.” She also stated that she was recorded looking at Officer Detweiler’s chest, where his body camera was positioned, then stopped talking. She testified that this may have been because she did not want to say anything “personal” on camera. By the time she approached, Mangione was already handcuffed, with Officers Frye and Yeager nearby.
Soon after the arrest, Lieutenant Hanelly directed Officer Wasser to search Mangione’s backpack. Picking it up, she described the backpack as “heavy.” She said she had been concerned about the possibility of a bomb. The New York shooting suspect “shot [Brian Thompson] execution-style on a sidewalk,” Officer Wasser stated. She testified that this heightened her concern about the contents of the backpack, as she believed Mangione could have been the then unidentified suspect. When Corporal Trent told her to “just make sure there is no bomb” before transporting the bag, she replied, “I want to make sure there’s nothing in there that’s gonna…” and explained to the court that she had alluded to the possibility that a bomb might explode.
She put on gloves before opening the bag, stating they were meant to protect her and “not contaminate the evidence.” On video, Officer Wasser can be seen removing a knife, a “hoagie” (the local term for a sub sandwich), a loaf of Italian bread, and other items from the largest compartment of the bag. She also removed what she described as a “faraday bag,” containing a cellphone, passport and wallet. Officer Wasser then found a pair of wet, grey boxers wrapped around a fully loaded magazine, holding it up and turning it several times to show the other officers. She said she searched the rest of the bag’s contents and concluded there was no bomb.
The footage also showed officers debating whether they needed a search warrant. Corporal Trent said they “probably need a search warrant because of the severity of the case,” but Officer Fox and Sergeant Burns argued the search was lawful as “search incident to arrest.” Sergeant Burns, the senior officer, directed the search to continue. Officers decided to finish searching at the station, placing items including the laptop, bread, and hoagie into a McDonald’s bag while Officer Wasser repacked the backpack.
At the station, Officer Wasser opened a front compartment of the backpack that she had not searched at the McDonald’s. She characterized this as a standard receipt and inventory search. Inside, she discovered a pistol, declaring, “there’s a weapon!” At Deputy Chief Derek Swope’s direction, she removed its magazine, cleared the chamber, and secured it. She also found a suppressor and a handwritten note with a hand-drawn map.
The note included what prosecutors described as possible escape routes from Pittsburgh to cities including Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, and Indianapolis. It contained instructions such as “Keep momentum FBI slower overnight,” “Break CAM continuity” (possibly referring to avoiding camera surveillance), “Change hat, shoes, pluck eyebrows,” and “red eyes” (possibly referring to overnight travel). The reverse side included directions: “12/5 bus to Penn station,” “Train goes left,” and “Bus to Union.”
Mangione’s defense lawyers objected to introducing the backpack’s contents as evidence, arguing that they had “no relevance to a Mapp hearing.” A Mapp hearing is held to suppress physical evidence when one party argues that police conducted an unlawful search or seizure. The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures. If a court determines that a search or seizure was unreasonable, the court will exclude that evidence from trial under the exclusionary rule, which only applies in criminal cases. Judge Carro overruled the defense’s objection.
Additional items found in the backpack included computer components, digital media storage devices, toiletries, multiple cards, zip ties, and other personal items. Officer Wasser also found a red notebook.
On cross-examination, Attorney Friedman Agnifilo challenged Officer Wasser’s handling of the search, pointing out that if she truly feared a bomb, she never cleared customers from the restaurant or called a bomb squad. Mangione watched his attorney closely throughout. Attorney Friedman Agnifilo also noted that Officer Wasser had met multiple times with Assistant District Attorney Joel Seidemann in both Pennsylvania and New York to review search-and-seizure policies.
Attorney Friedman Agnifilo then challenged the chain of custody. She noted that Officer Wasser took 11 minutes to return to the station from McDonald’s with her body camera off, while Officer Detweiler took only nine minutes. The questioning became aggressive:
“Isn’t it true you searched that backpack when you stopped the car?” Attorney Friedman Agnifilo pressed. “No,” Officer Wasser replied. “You drove with your gloves on?” “I did.” “So you could search that backpack in the car, not on camera, isn’t that true?” “That is untrue.” “And you opened up that front section and found a gun in there, correct?” “No.” “And that is why when you went to the precinct, you made sure your camera was on and put it right down. And the first thing you did is open it up and right there on top there is a gun, isn’t that true?”
Assistant District Attorney Joel Seidemann objected, but Judge Carro overruled him. Officer Wasser denied the allegation. The aggressive questioning suggests the defense will argue that evidence was tampered with or that there are gaps in the chain of custody. If the judge finds these arguments convincing, the gun and suppressor could be excluded from trial.
Though formally People v. Mangione, this litigation has also become Press v. Mangione, at least in practice. The Mangione case is notable for its tension between defense counsel and media. During the proceedings, Judge Carro and a lawyer for news outlets, Robert Balin, sparred over whether the press could access certain case exhibits that could potentially become evidence. Judge Carro reminded him that he had sealed the exhibits to avoid publicity bias before the trial, and that they had agreed that exhibits would be released via court drop box under a standard detailed in the Daily News v. Wiley case.
Judge Carro stood firm in his decision to seal the exhibits:
Here, as in Wiley, this is a suppression hearing where exhibits may be suppressed. That decision will not be made till the end of these hearings. A trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity, citing Wiley. Here, counsel met their burden to show that if these exhibits were released, there was a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial would be prejudiced by pretrial publicity and that there were no reasonable alternatives. Also, as in Wiley, the hearing has been held here in open court with the press here…The only thing that they are not permitted to do is to obtain and release these exhibits to the public and thereby prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Attorney Balin argued that he had counted “about 20 different video clips,” some more prejudicial than others, and urged the court to consider redactions or rely on voir dire—the jury selection process where potential jurors are questioned to identify bias—to mitigate risk. The latter argument elicited an immediate furrowing of the brows and disbelieving scowl from Mangione. In an ideal trial, jurors would base their verdict only on evidence presented in court, as they are instructed to do. However, given the high-profile nature of the Mangione case, it is likely that jurors will be somewhat affected by pre-trial publicity regardless of the court’s efforts.
Citing People v. Pedro Hernandez, Judge Carro responded that he could not resolve such issues based on audience members raising their hands in the courtroom, as he wished to preserve court order and decorum. Instead, he invited the press to submit written applications for further unsealing.
