Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 24 Mag. 4375

LUIGI MANGIONE,

Defendant.
X

DEFENDANT LUIGI MANGIONE’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE

THE GOVERNMENT FROM SEEKING THE DEATH PENALTY

Karen Friedman Agnifilo

Marc Agnifilo
Jacob Kaplan
AGNIFILO INTRATER LLP
445 Park Ave., 7th Fl.
New York, NY 10022

Avi Moskowitz
MOSKOWITZ COLSON
GINSBERG & SCHULMAN
80 Broad Street, Suite 1900
New York, NY 10004
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 2 of 33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 3

A. The Attorney General’s April 1, 2025, Press Release ............................................. 3

B. The Attorney General’s Instagram Posts................................................................. 5

C. The Attorney General’s Televised Appearance on Sunday, April 6, 2025 .............. 5

D. Case History of United States v. Mangione ............................................................ 6

E. Arguments Made to and Mitigating Factors Shared with the Previous

Administration’s Capital Case Section That Have Been Seemingly Ignored
by the Attorney General .......................................................................................... 9

1. The Pending Manhattan D.A. Case Undermines the Federal Interest

in Capital Punishment ................................................................................. 9

2. The Aggravating Factors Do Not Sufficiently Outweigh the

Mitigating Factors ......................................................................................11

3. An Analysis of The Cases Where the S.D.N.Y. Has Sought the Death
Penalty Over the Past Almost Four Decades Illustrate That the
Mangione Case Is an Outlier..................................................................... 13

III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 14

A. The Attorney General’s Directive to Seek the Death Penalty Is a Breach of

Established Death Penalty Protocol, As Well As Arbitrary and Political ............. 14

1. The Attorney General Has Abandoned Established Death Penalty

Protocol ..................................................................................................... 14

2. The Attorney General’s Decision is Arbitrary .......................................... 15

3. The Attorney General’s Decision is Political ............................................ 16

4. Where the Attorney General’s Order That the S.D.N.Y. Prosecutors

Seek the Death Penalty Violates the Established Protocol, and is
Arbitrary and Political, and Where Her Public Statements Have
Tainted the Grand Jury, This Court Should Take Action .......................... 17
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 3 of 33

5. This Court Should Not Presume Good Faith by the Attorney

General ...................................................................................................... 19

i. Dismissal of United States v. Eric Adams ..................................... 20

ii. The Removal of Abrego Garcia .................................................... 20

iii. Retaliatory Executive Orders Against Law Firms ........................ 21

B. The Attorney General’s Three Public Statements Have Prejudiced the

Federal Case, the New York State Case and the Federal Grand Jury
Proceedings ........................................................................................................... 23

C. The Attorney General Violated Local Rule 23.1................................................... 25

D. The Government Should Provide Defense Counsel with the

Recommendation of the S.D.N.Y. to The Capital Case Section as Well as
All Memoranda provided to the Capital Case Section or the Attorney
General .................................................................................................................. 26

E. The Government Should Provide Defense Counsel with Emails, Records,

Documents and Notes of Communications Between a Government Official
and Anyone Advocating for the Death Penalty or Any Penalty on Behalf of
Any Business, Corporate Interest, Lobbyist or Other Party Directly or
Indirectly ............................................................................................................... 26

IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 27

-ii-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 4 of 33

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
24 Mag. 4375
v.

LUIGI MANGIONE,

Defendant.
X

DEFENDANT LUIGI MANGIONE’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE

THE GOVERNMENT FROM SEEKING THE DEATH PENALTY

I. INTRODUCTION

When the United States plans to kill one of its citizens, it must follow statutory and internal

procedures. Defendant Luigi Mangione seeks Court intervention now not merely because the

Government has failed to follow these procedures but because it has abandoned them. He seeks

Court intervention because the Attorney General has explicitly stated that she has ordered the death

penalty to “carry out President Trump’s agenda to stop violent crime and Make America Safe

Again.” Mr. Mangione’s counsel asked for three months to prepare a fulsome mitigation

submission to the Department of Justice’s Capital Committee and was ignored.

The stakes could not be higher. The United States government intends to kill Mr. Mangione

as a political stunt. We appreciate, and will address, the province and discretion of the Executive

Branch of government, and how, in the usual course, courts defer to the Executive’s established

procedures. But the Attorney General’s actions and public statements in this case have not followed

the usual course. Because the Attorney General has chosen to proceed in this way, Mr. Mangione’s

Due Process rights have already been violated and the manner in which the Government has acted

has prejudiced the grand jury pool and has corrupted the grand jury process.
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 5 of 33

We seek two forms of relief from the Court. First, because the Attorney General’s direction

to the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors—issued publicly, as a press release—to seek a death sentence for Mr.

Mangione is political, arbitrary, capricious, a breach of established death penalty protocol and has

now indelibly prejudiced this process, the Government should be precluded from seeking the death

penalty. Second, because of the highly public nature of the Attorney General’s press release

directive, her follow-up Instagram post stating plainly Mangione is guilty of murder (though he is

still unindicted, let alone convicted), and her statement that Mr. Mangione should be executed

because he committed two particular statutory aggravating factors, the Attorney General has

prejudiced the grand jury process in this District. Accordingly, any grand jury that is or is to be

empaneled on Mr. Mangione’s case should be polled on their exposure to the Attorney General’s

improper statements and actions. Of course, as explained below, the impropriety of the Attorney

General’s conduct is clear from her obvious violation of Local Rule 23.1. The Attorney General

compounded this prejudice by appearing on television on Sunday, April 6, 2025, and stating that

she has received “death threats for seeking the death penalty.”

As a result, this Court should: (i) Preclude the Government from seeking the death penalty;

(ii) Order that any proposed federal grand jurors be screened for exposure to the Attorney General’s

prejudicial public statements; (iii) Order the Attorney General to certify she has read Local Rule

23.1; (iv) Restrain the Attorney General from extrajudicial statements in violation of the Rule that

could prejudice Mr. Mangione’s right to a fair hearing by a grand jury, including the grand jury’s

consideration of death-eligible offenses and factors; (v) Order the Government to produce for in

camera inspection any memoranda, documents and notes from the S.D.N.Y.’s consideration of the

death penalty, as well as any memoranda, documents, and notes provided to the Attorney General

as part of her “careful consideration” of the evidence; and (vi) Order the Government to produce

-2-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 6 of 33

to Mr. Mangione any emails, records, documents, memoranda and notes of any communication

between a government official and anyone advocating for the death sentence, or any particular

sentence, in this case by or on behalf of any business, corporate interest, lobbyist or other party,

directly or indirectly.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Attorney General’s April 1, 2025, Press Release

On the morning of April 1, 2025, the United States Attorney General issued a press release

(attached as Exhibit 1). 1 The title of the press release is “Attorney General Pamela Bondi Directs

Prosecutors To Seek Death Penalty For Luigi Mangione.” In the release, the Attorney General

wrote, “After careful consideration, I have directed federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty

in this case as we carry out President Trump’s agenda to stop violent crime and Make

America Safe Again.” (Emphasis added). The Attorney General continued, “as alleged, Luigi

Mangione stalked and murdered United Health Care executive Brian Thompson on December 4,

2024. The murder was an act of political violence. Mangione’s actions involved substantial

planning and premeditation and because the murder took place in public with bystanders nearby

may have posed a grave risk of death to additional persons.” 2 (Emphasis added). The Attorney

General concluded the Press Release by stating “[t]his is in line with Attorney General Bondi’s

Day One Memo as Attorney General entitled Reviving the Federal Death Penalty and Lifting The

1
Counsel for Mr. Mangione were first informed by a newspaper reporter that the Attorney General
directed the line prosecutors to seek the death penalty.
2
The Attorney General misstated the statutory aggravating factor, which states that “the defendant
. . . knowingly created a grave risk of death to 1 or more persons in addition to the victim of the
offense.”

-3-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 7 of 33

Moratorium On Federal Executions.” The Attorney General’s statements were immediately and

widely reported by press outlets around the world, including the New York Times, New York Post,

Wall Street Journal, BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, CNN, Fox News, Law.com,

Guardian, Washington Post, CBS News, USA Today, Bloomberg, Los Angeles Times, Chicago

Tribune, Politico, ABC News and countless others.

Rather than authorizing the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors to seek the death penalty in a non-public

communication, the Attorney General saw fit to direct them to do so via press release. In this

release, she did not once say that Mr. Mangione had not yet been indicted for any federal crime,

or that these are mere “allegations.” She never once discussed the presumption of innocence or

that Mr. Mangione is innocent until proven guilty. She assured the country that she gave the matter

“careful consideration.” But, as indicated below, when the defense asked for three months to

conduct an albeit abbreviated mitigation investigation 3 and prepare a submission to the current

administration’s Capital Case Section, this request was ignored. Also, to the extent she referred to

two statutory aggravating factors, she materially misstated one of them. She also called the incident

“an act of political violence” even though Mr. Mangione is charged in a complaint with stalking a

single person who was not a politician or even political.

The Attorney General’s press release is relevant because it is evidence of the political and

arbitrary nature of this decision. However, the Attorney General was not done making public

statements about this case.

3
The defense was told numerous times that a decision was imminent, thus we requested a
reasonable three months rather than the 9 months to 1 year that a more fulsome proper mitigation
investigation can take, especially in a case such as this one.

-4-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 8 of 33

B. The Attorney General’s Instagram Posts

Shortly after the Attorney General’s press release, the Attorney General launched an

Instagram account (attached as Exhibit 2). The inaugural two posts of the Attorney General’s new

Instagram account were a photograph of the Attorney General standing before the seal of the

United States Department of Justice and the following message: “Luigi Mangione’s murder of

Brian Thompson—an innocent man and father of two young children—was a premeditated, cold-

blooded assassination that shocked America. After careful consideration, I have directed federal

prosecutors to seek the death penalty in this case as we carry out President Trump’s agenda to stop

violent crime and Make America Safe Again.”

The Attorney General again failed to mention that Mr. Mangione has not been indicted nor

that he is presumed to be innocent. She did reemphasize that the decision was based on politics,

specifically the administration’s agenda to “Make America Safe Again.” She was still not done

making public statements and prejudicing Mr. Mangione.

C. The Attorney General’s Televised Appearance on Sunday, April 6, 2025

On Sunday, April 6, 2025, the Attorney General appeared on Fox News Sunday.

Concerning the Luigi Mangione case and her direction to prosecutors to seek the death penalty,

she stated the following:

The President’s directive was very clear: we are to seek the death penalty when
possible. It hadn’t been done in four years. I was a capital prosecutor. I tried death
penalty cases throughout my career. If there was ever a death case, this is one. This
guy is charged with hunting down a CEO, a father of two, a married man. Hunting
him down and executing him. I feel like these young people have lost their way. I
was receiving death threats for seeking the death penalty on someone who is
charged with an execution of a CEO. We are going to continue to do the right thing.
We are not going to be deterred by political motives. I’ve seen a protestor walking
down the street here, “free Luigi,” I mean this guy is charged with a violent crime
and we are going to seek the death penalty whenever possible.

-5-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 9 of 33

The Attorney General’s television appearance was similar to her first two public statements

in that she never mentioned that Mr. Mangione was not indicted nor that he has the presumption

of innocence. She emphasized, for the third time, that her decision to seek the death penalty was

based on the President’s directive, specifically that the administration will seek the death sentence

“whenever possible.” She then invoked her personal experience, saying that she was a capital

prosecutor, who tried death penalty cases and that “If there was ever a death case, this is one.” The

Attorney General stated during her television appearance that a reason she ordered the death

sentence was because the alleged victim was a CEO. Counsel is aware of no provision in the death

penalty statute or in the Department of Justice’s death penalty protocol that allows for

consideration of the social, economic or professional status of an alleged homicide victim in

determining whether to seek the death penalty.

The Attorney General’s pattern of public statements show with remarkable clarity and

consistency that she has ordered this capital prosecution unabashedly for political reasons, that her

statements prejudice any potential grand jury pool, and that the victim’s professional status as a

CEO was relevant to her decision. As will be shown below, her decision was also reached without

any regard to the established Department of Justice death penalty protocol, which she has wholly

abandoned.

D. Case History of United States v. Mangione

Following an investigation undertaken almost exclusively by the Manhattan District

Attorney and New York City Police Department, Luigi Mangione was arrested in Altoona,

Pennsylvania on Monday, December 9, 2024. Four days later, on Friday, December 13, 2024, the

undersigned counsel—Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Marc Agnifilo—visited with him for the first

time in a jail in Pennsylvania. On Monday, December 16, 2024, counsel informed the Manhattan

-6-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 10 of 33

District Attorney that Mr. Mangione was waiving extradition to New York to be prosecuted by the

Manhattan District Attorney. It bears noting that the reason the District Attorney was seeking a

waiver of extradition and that Mr. Mangione agreed to one was because there was no federal case

on the horizon. Had there been a federal case, he would have been arrested by the FBI, brought to

the nearest federal magistrate judge and the case would have started in that fashion, not requiring

the additional step of waiver of extradition. Mangione’s counsel made arrangements with the

Manhattan District Attorney and New York State Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro for Mr.

Mangione to appear in New York State Supreme Court, Part 32, on Thursday December 19, 2024,

for arraignment on a First-Degree Murder Indictment returned in New York County. Meanwhile,

law enforcement was orchestrating the mother of all “perp walks,” attended by none other than the

New York City Mayor. As we prepared for the Supreme Court arraignment, counsel was contacted

by a newspaper reporter who asked, in substance, whether it was true that the “Feds were stealing

the case?” Seemingly a shock to all, including the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, it turned

out to be true.

Rather than Mr. Mangione being brought to New York Supreme Court on December 19,

2024, he was brought to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for an initial

appearance on a Complaint signed the previous day by the Magistrate Judge. The Complaint

charged four counts. Count Three, Murder Through Use of a Firearm, charges that Mr. Mangione

used a firearm during the crime of Stalking and in the course of that crime committed Murder; this

charge carries a maximum penalty of death.

Counsel for Mr. Mangione has been in regular contact with the prosecutors from the

S.D.N.Y. assigned to this case. In early January 2025, the prosecutors and counsel emailed about

a meeting with the Capital Review Committee under the prior administration. On Wednesday,

-7-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 11 of 33

January 8, 2025, the prosecutors sent an email setting the time of this meeting on Monday, January

13, 2025, at 11:45 AM, and further advised that the defense was free to make a written submission

but one was not required.

On Sunday, January 12, 2025, at 9:07 a.m., the defense emailed an eleven-page written

submission to the Capital Case Section and the three S.D.N.Y. prosecutors detailing why the death

penalty was inappropriate in this case. On January 13, 2025, the defense made an oral presentation

to members of the Capital Case Section and the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors.

On January 24, 2025, defense counsel spoke with the prosecutors, who said that there was

no decision yet but that the decision was “imminent.”

On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, defense counsel spoke with the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors, who

indicated that the Capital Review Committee (under the previous administration) had not made a

decision. During this and other calls, the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors informed counsel that the current

administration had not yet assembled a functioning Capital Review Committee due to the recent

change in administration. Also, on February 4, 2025, the Court appointed Avraham “Avi”

Moskowitz as learned counsel.

On Thursday, February 6, 2025, defense counsel emailed the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors that “if

the Capital Crimes Section is unable to make a decision based on our first submission, we

respectfully request 3 months in order to give us time to conduct a thorough mitigation

investigation in order to submit additional information.” (2/6/25 Email, attached as Exhibit 3).

On March 12, 2025, defense counsel spoke with the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors, who stated that

a decision on the death penalty would be reached without waiting for the defense to submit

mitigating factors. On April 1, 2025, the Attorney General issued a press release directing the

S.D.N.Y. prosecutors to seek the death penalty.

-8-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 12 of 33

E. Arguments Made to and Mitigating Factors Shared with the Previous

Administration’s Capital Case Section That Have Been Seemingly Ignored by
the Attorney General

As noted, on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors informed defense

counsel that the Capital Case Committee was available for a Teams virtual meeting on Monday,

January 13, 2025. The prosecutors further explained that because of the impending change in

administration, the Monday deadline was firm. On the morning of Sunday, January 12, 2025,

counsel submitted an eleven-page single-spaced letter. On Monday, January 13, 2025, counsel

discussed the issues raised in the letter with the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors and the then-constituted

Capital Case Committee. The Committee appeared to accept the arguments of counsel and did not

push back as to any of them. Solely so the Court can understand the points made, we briefly outline

them here.

1. The Pending Manhattan D.A. Case Undermines the Federal Interest

in Capital Punishment

Counsel argued that the Justice Manual speaks precisely to a situation where, as here, a

defendant is being actively prosecuted by a local prosecutor for the same conduct charged under

federal law, and where the local charges carry the possibility of life in prison. On this point, the

Justice Manual provides as follows:

[p]rior to charging a capital offense, prosecutors must (1) carefully assess whether
an accused is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction (JM 9-27.240)
(for this purpose, the legal unavailability of capital punishment in the state where
the crime was committed should not form the basis for concluding the state cannot
effectively prosecute the case) and (2) thoroughly review the substantial federal
interest principles outlined at JM 9-27.230 and the dual and successive prosecution
policies (“Petite policy”) outlined at JM 9-2-031 and be able to articulate in
submissions to the Department what specific federal interests justify the charge(s).
Priority should be given to crimes causing the most harm to the nation, including
through widespread impact to the community.

Justice Manual, 9-10.140 (Substantial Federal Interest).

-9-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 13 of 33

In light of the New York State case, prosecutors must “carefully assess” whether that case

is an “effective prosecution.” It is impossible for the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors, a Capital Case

Committee member or indeed the Attorney General to view the New York State case as anything

other than an “effective prosecution,” as that term is used in the Manual. The State’s case charges,

among other crimes, the crime of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of Penal Law § 125.27.

This is the single most serious offense recognized in the New York Penal Law. The sentencing for

a violation of Penal Law § 125.27 is provided in Penal Law § 60.06, which states, in part, that

“when a defendant is convicted of murder in the first degree . . . the court shall . . . sentence the

defendant to death, 4 to life imprisonment without parole . . . or to a term of imprisonment for a

class A-1 felony other than a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.”

As the Justice Manual also makes clear, the fact that the State of New York does not

currently have a death penalty does not make the State’s prosecution of Mr. Mangione any less

“effective.” Indeed, the Manual seems to have contemplated this exact situation and provides that

a state prosecution can be altogether effective even if it cannot legally result in capital punishment.

There is no indication that the Attorney General followed any of the procedures set out in the

Justice Manual, 9-10.140. Rather, the Attorney General’s directive, as well as her other public

statements, focus exclusively on the “Make America Safe Again” policy as well as her contention

that the death penalty was particularly appropriate because “[i]t hadn’t been done in four years.”

While a new administration must be given wide latitude to develop new and different policies to

4
New York State has abolished and reinstated capital punishment several times. In 2004, in People
v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88 (2004), the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the death penalty
violated the New York State constitution because of a statutory direction on how the trial jury was
to be instructed in the event of a deadlock. Accordingly, while the wording of the Penal Law
continues to provide for the possibility of capital punishment for First Degree Murder, it has not
been pursued in over twenty years and will not be pursued by the State of New York here.

-10-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 14 of 33

help the American people, this does not include abandoning its own death penalty protocol so the

Government can kill a particular defendant without regard to the law or settled procedures.

2. The Aggravating Factors Do Not Sufficiently Outweigh the Mitigating

Factors

The Justice Manual states that to justify a federal death penalty prosecution, the

aggravating factors should sufficiently outweigh the mitigating factors. Here, they do not. Based

on the filed federal complaint and other information provided by law enforcement, 5 the only

aggravating factor that can conceivably apply is related to “substantial planning and

premeditation,” under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3592(c)(9). None of the other statutory

or non-statutory factors apply to the crime or the defendant.

In addition to “substantial planning and premeditation,” counsel alerted the Government in

our January 12, 2025, letter to another factor, whether the defendant “knowingly created a grave

risk of death to one or more persons in addition to the victim of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. §

3592(c)(5). We stated that although the Government may errantly consider this factor, a careful

analysis of this consideration weighs against seeking the death penalty for at least three reasons.

First, here, the allegation is of a highly targeted shooting that took place at close-range. Second,

the alleged shooting occurred at a time when the streets of Manhattan were relatively empty and

there was little chance anyone else would be hurt, much less killed. Third, Counts One and Two

of the federal complaint charge stalking—of a single, specific, alleged victim. Indeed, the

jurisdictional hook for the murder and firearms charges in Counts Three and Four of the federal

complaint are the very same allegations of stalking—again, of a single, specific person. Therefore,

5
We are not of course conceding the truth of any set of facts but instead merely reciting what has
been alleged by the authorities.

-11-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 15 of 33

to a greater extent than most cases, the federal government’s own theory in this case is that Mr.

Mangione posed a threat to only one person—the person he allegedly stalked. Because it is clear

that this aggravating factor does not apply, the Attorney General changed the wording to make it

appear that it may fit the conduct, when it does not.

As to the only aggravating factor that could plausibly apply—“substantial planning and

premeditation,” under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3592(c)(9)—there appears to have

never been an instance where the S.D.N.Y. filed a notice to seek capital punishment where the sole

aggravating factor was “substantial planning and premeditation.” We pointed out in our letter and

during the January 13, 2025, virtual presentation that the “substantial planning and premeditation”

factor is particularly weak in this case because it would be virtually impossible to have the offense

charged under Count Three without substantial planning and premeditation. Count Three charges

that Mangione stalked the victim with a gun by travelling in interstate commerce and murdering

him. The crime itself requires substantial planning and premeditation; simply put, it is impossible

to stalk someone between states with a gun and with the intent to kill the person and not also satisfy

the aggravating factor of substantial planning and premeditation.

In terms of mitigating factors, Mr. Mangione’s background reveals an exemplary life in

every respect. He was, and is, a loved and cherished son, brother, uncle and cousin in a large, close,

loving family. He was the valedictorian of his high school where he led the robotics team to the

Eastern Regional Finals. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in four years with both

a Bachelor’s and a Master’s Degree in Computer Science. He spent his life playing soccer and

baseball; he ran track and wrestled.

When compared with Mr. Mangione’s life of love, support and excellence, and no criminal

record, the sole statutory aggravating factor pales in comparison. The Justice Manual requires that

-12-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 16 of 33

the aggravating factors sufficiently outweigh the mitigating ones. Because they do not, a capital

prosecution is not warranted.

3. An Analysis of The Cases Where the S.D.N.Y. Has Sought the Death
Penalty Over the Past Almost Four Decades Illustrate That the
Mangione Case Is an Outlier

Counsel pointed out to the Capital Committee of the prior administration that since 1988,

the U.S. Attorney in this District has filed Notices of Intent (NOI) to seek the death penalty in

roughly 17 cases. (See Appendix A for a summary of these cases). Every one of the cases involved

defendants who committed murder as part of a violent drug or racketeering enterprise, in

furtherance of a narcotics business or as part of a terrorist organization. This alone is a major

distinction from this case. A defendant who has joined a violent drug, racketeering, or terrorist

enterprise has already made a commitment to significant criminal activity. This is obviously not

the case with Mr. Mangione.

All but four defendants were charged with multiple murders. As to each of the defendants

charged with a single murder—Deric Frank, Jose Santiago, Alan Quinones, and Diego

Rodriguez—each defendant had already made a commitment to a life of crime by joining a violent

drug gang or being involved in the sale of narcotics on a large scale. In addition, each defendant

engaged in conduct involving aggravating factors not present here. For instance, Deric Frank killed

a witness to his drug activity after kidnapping and torturing the victim; Santiago was a member of

a racketeering enterprise and specifically ordered the victim to be killed in front of the victim’s

wife and children; Quinones and Rodriguez tortured and killed an informant as part of their

membership in a violent drug organization.

These four defendants are vastly distinct from Mr. Mangione for a host of reasons, only

some of which we will note here. First, each of the four defendants charged with one murder was

-13-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 17 of 33

involved in serious criminal activity, whether that be dealing in narcotics or being a member of a

violent drug or racketeering enterprise. Second, all of the defendants committed murder involving

torture or physical abuse of the victim, which is not present here. Third, two others committed a

contract killing of an informant. Of course, for the remaining 12 defendants, each committed

multiple murders and did so as part of a violent drug enterprise or a terrorist organization.

While the Attorney General stated during her television appearance that “If there was ever

a death case, this is one,” that statement is wholly inconsistent with the historical record of death

penalty cases in this District.

III. ARGUMENT

A. The Attorney General’s Directive to Seek the Death Penalty Is a Breach of

Established Death Penalty Protocol, As Well As Arbitrary and Political

Given these facts and circumstances, the Attorney General’s directive to seek death should

be vacated for three related reasons. First, the Attorney General has abandoned the established

death penalty protocol. Second, the Attorney General’s decision is arbitrary and capricious in that

she has directed the death penalty where (i) the existence of the New York County District Attorney

case undercuts the federal interest in the death penalty; (ii) there is only one colorable statutory

aggravating factor that does not outweigh the mitigating factors; and (iii) this case is so far outside

the realm of cases where the S.D.N.Y. has sought the death penalty. Third, the Attorney General’s

decision is explicitly and wholly political.

1. The Attorney General Has Abandoned Established Death Penalty

Protocol

As noted, counsel was given five days’ notice before the only meeting afforded counsel

with the Capital Case Committee, which was a hastily assembled virtual Microsoft Teams meeting.

In preparation for that meeting, and with the limited time permitted, counsel prepared a letter that

-14-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 18 of 33

they submitted the day before the meeting. This was the only submission and the only Capital Case

Committee meeting afforded counsel. Significantly, the submission to and the meeting with the

Capital Case Committee were with the one existing under the previous administration. Since the

change in administration, counsel has not been asked for a submission or offered the opportunity

to meet with the Capital Case Committee formed by and existing under the current administration.

After counsel was informed that the prior administration’s Capital Case Committee did not

reach a decision as to the death penalty, counsel sent an email to the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors on

February 6, 2025, stating, “if the Capital Crimes Section is unable to make a decision based on our

first submission, we respectfully request 3 months in order to give us time to conduct a thorough

mitigation investigation in order to submit additional information.” (2/6/25 Email, attached as

Exhibit 3). Less than two months later, without warning, the Attorney General issued the press

release with the direction to seek the death penalty.

This is not a situation, like with some other cases, see United States v. Saipov, 2019 WL

624176 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019), where the Department of Justice failed to follow each and every

aspect of the exhaustive death penalty protocol. Rather, this is a wholesale rejection by the Attorney

General herself of the protocol in its entirety.

2. The Attorney General’s Decision is Arbitrary

It is not surprising that, after a wholesale rejection of the death penalty protocol, the

Attorney General ordered the death penalty. Counsel advanced three cogent reasons why the

Mangione case was plainly outside the realm of cases where this District has sought the death

penalty. We pointed out the specific Justice Manual sections stating that the federal interest in a

death penalty prosecution is diminished where there is an effective local prosecution, as is

undoubtedly the case here. We pointed out that only one statutory aggravating factor could

-15-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 19 of 33

conceivably apply to the alleged conduct. In response, the Attorney General literally changed the

wording of a second factor in her press release ordering the death penalty to make it falsely appear

that there were two applicable factors instead of one. The Attorney General’s directive to seek the

death penalty under such circumstance can only be described as arbitrary and capricious. Finally,

we listed the cases where the S.D.N.Y. had sought the death penalty over the past four decades.

Rather than relying on these reasons, the Attorney General cited the professional status of

the victim as a CEO, the fact that the previous administration had not sought the death penalty in

four years and that her decision to order it here was due to the president’s policy to “Make America

Safe Again.” Also, if the death penalty was being ordered pursuant to policy instead of publicity,

the Attorney General would not have put her directive in the form of a press release followed by

an Instagram post that effectively launched a new government social media account.

3. The Attorney General’s Decision is Political

The Attorney General’s decision is explicitly and unapologetically political. The Attorney

General could hardly have been clearer as to the basis for her directive that the prosecutors seek

the death penalty in this case: to “carry out President Trump’s agenda to stop violent crime and

Make America Safe Again.” See Attorney General’s Press Release (Exhibit 1); Attorney General’s

Instagram Post (Exhibit 2). Not only did she explicitly cite to the administration’s policy to Make

America Safe Again in the original press release of April 1, 2025, she reiterated during her

televised appearance on Sunday, April 6, 2025, that “the President’s directive was very clear: we

are to seek the death penalty whenever possible.”

Because the driving factor for the Attorney General ordering the death penalty was politics

and not the facts of the case, including any mitigating factors, as she is required to do, it is no

surprise that the defense’s request for three months to “conduct a thorough mitigation investigation

-16-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 20 of 33

in order to submit additional information” (see Exhibit 3) was ignored. Ultimately, any mitigation

would have fallen on deaf ears in any event, as the Attorney General was plainly concerned only

with “the President’s directive” and with the “Make America Safe” policies of the administration

instead of the facts of this case.

4. Where the Attorney General’s Order That the S.D.N.Y. Prosecutors

Seek the Death Penalty Violates the Established Protocol, and is
Arbitrary and Political, and Where Her Public Statements Have
Tainted the Grand Jury, This Court Should Take Action

Mr. Mangione starts his analysis, as will this Court, from the standpoint that under normal

circumstances, the Attorney General “retains broad discretion in (her) prosecutorial decision-

making.” United States v. Saipov, 2019 WL 624176, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019) (quoting

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)). As Judge Broderick further noted in Saipov,

“[p]olicy considerations behind a prosecutor’s traditionally wide discretion suggest the

impropriety of (courts) requiring prosecutors to defend their decisions to seek death penalties.”

Saipov, 2019 WL 624176, at *3 (quoting McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 296 (1987)). “Absent

a preliminary showing of arbitrary action, the Court must assume that the Attorney General’s

decision (to seek the death penalty) was made in good faith.” Saipov, 2019 WL 624176, at *3

(quoting United States v. Kee, 2000 WL 863119, at 4 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2000)).

The facts in Saipov are distinct from those in this case and should lead to a different result.

Saipov was accused, and later convicted, of intentionally driving a flatbed truck onto a cycling and

pedestrian pathway in lower Manhattan, killing eight people and injuring another eighteen, in

furtherance of the activities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (“ISIS”). Saipov was arrested

on October 31, 2017. The next day, President Trump posted to his Twitter account, “NYC terrorist

was happy as he asked to hang his ISIS flag in his hospital room. He killed 8 people, badly injured

-17-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 21 of 33

12. SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY!” Saipov, 2019 WL 624176, at *2. Over the following

days, President Trump made further statements about Saipov, at least one of which involved the

death penalty. Defense counsel did not make a motion to the Court for any relief at the time of the

tweets, choosing instead to move to preclude the Government from seeking the death penalty on

September 6, 2018, roughly ten months later, which was subsequently denied by the court.

The first key difference between Saipov and this case is that between the time of the

president’s tweets and the defendant’s motion, Saipov’s counsel was afforded the death penalty

protocol assured to death-eligible defendants. He was invited to make a written mitigation

submission and he did so. He was invited to make an in-person presentation to the S.D.N.Y.

prosecutors and he did so. The S.D.N.Y. prosecutors then sent both Saipov’s written submission

and its own submission to the Attorney General’s Review Committee on Capital Cases (the Capital

Review Committee). Defense counsel was then invited to make a second in-person mitigation

presentation, this one directly to the Capital Review Committee in July 2018, and they did so. The

Committee then made a recommendation to then-Attorney General Jefferson Sessions III. After

defense counsel was invited to make, and made: (i) a written presentation, (ii) an in-person

presentation to the S.D.N.Y. and (iii) an in-person presentation to the Capital Review Committee,

but before the final decision of the Attorney General, defense counsel for the first time moved to

preclude the Government from seeking the death penalty due to the president’s tweets from ten

months earlier. What is clear in Saipov is that despite the president’s tweets, Saipov was afforded,

and availed himself of, the established Justice Department protocols assured to defendants in death

penalty cases.

The second distinction between Saipov and Mr. Mangione is that in Saipov, the Court

opined that the president’s tweets did not impact the judgement of Attorney General Sessions.

-18-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 22 of 33

Here, it is the Attorney General herself who has rushed to judgement without affording the

defendant the procedures outlined in the Department of Justice’s death penalty protocols.

Moreover, in this case, unlike in Saipov, the one making the offending remarks is the Attorney

General herself. Here, the one and only person legally permitted to make this decision is the same

person who breached the established protocol, making a decision that is blatantly arbitrary and

political and then publicizing that decision in a manner to prejudice the grand jury hearing this

case.

The third distinction is that in Saipov, the court observed that the defense failed to show

that the Attorney General’s decision was influenced by politics. Here, the Attorney General has

stated explicitly that her decision to order the death penalty was to “carry out President Trump’s

agenda to stop violent crime and Make America Safe Again.” Accordingly, because the facts in

Saipov are plainly distinct, it is not persuasive authority over this case.

5. This Court Should Not Presume Good Faith by the Attorney General

Historically, Courts rightly presumed that the Executive branch “properly discharged its

official functions.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996). “Absent a preliminary

showing of arbitrary action, the Court must assume that the Attorney General’s decision (to seek

the death penalty) was made in good faith.” United States v. Saipov, 2019 WL 624176, at *2

(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019); United States v. Kee, 2000 WL 863119, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2000).

With a few exceptions, for over two hundred years the Executive Branch earned the presumption

of good faith. Over the last two months, it lost it.

-19-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 23 of 33

i. Dismissal of United States v. Eric Adams

On February 10, 2025, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

received a letter from the Deputy Attorney General directing her office to dismiss without prejudice

the Indictment against Eric Adams. There was no question as to the quality of the evidence or the

propriety of the charges. The former U.S. Attorney stated that the deal proposed by the Deputy

Attorney General, “dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistance in enforcing

the federal immigration laws,” violates “commonsense beliefs in the equal administration of

justice, the Justice Manual, and the Rules of Professional Conduct.” (Letter of U.S. Attorney

Danielle Sassoon to The Honorable Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, dated

February 12, 2025). The U.S. Attorney’s letter analogized the Adams deal with the Justice

Department to a “quid pro quo,” and an “improper exchange” and a bribe. She noted that a member

of her team was admonished for taking notes, and that all notes were collected and kept after the

meeting. Significant to the Mangione case, she wrote that she was “baffled by the rushed and

superficial process by which this decision was reached . . . without her direct input on the

ultimate stated rationales for dismissal.” Id. (Emphasis added). 6

ii. The Removal of Abrego Garcia

On March 12, 2025, ICE Agents arrested Abrego Garcia without a warrant and sent him to

the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. Six years earlier, he had been granted

withholding of removal, meaning that an immigration judge ruled he should not be returned to that

country. His detention and removal were unquestionably illegal and without proper process. When

6
In dismissing the case against Mayor Adams, District Judge Dale E. Ho noted that, despite the
Justice Department’s discretion and presumption of good faith, the court believed that the relief
the Justice Department was seeking, a dismissal without prejudice, was inappropriate. United
States v. Adams, 2025 WL 978572, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2025).

-20-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 24 of 33

the government attorney appearing before the District Court at Abrego Garcia’s hearing candidly

and truthfully admitted that no order of removal was part of the record, he was put on

administrative leave for failure to represent his client, which was the Department of Homeland

Security. The Attorney General discussed this issue on Sunday, April 6, 2025, during the same

interview referenced above where she addressed Mr. Mangione. Discussing why the lawyer

arguing the Abrego Garcia case was put on administrative leave for being candid with the Court,

the Attorney General stated, “on day one I issued a memo that you are to vigorously advocate on

behalf of the United States. Our client in this matter was Homeland Security. . . . He did not argue,

he shouldn’t have taken the case, he shouldn’t have argued it if that was what he was going to do.

He’s on administrative leave now.”

Just as the U.S. Attorney resigned, along with several other officials, due to the egregious

violations of process, a government lawyer was punished and put on administrative leave for being

candid with the court over the lack of a removal order for Abrego Garcia. Ultimately, this

government lawyer was on the right side of the law, as the Supreme Court last night upheld the

District Court’s ruling requiring that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from

custody in El Salvador. Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S. ___ (2025).

iii. Retaliatory Executive Orders Against Law Firms

In March 2025, the Executive Branch issued retaliatory Executive Orders against four law

firms, alleging “dishonest and dangerous activity” or “activity that undermines justice and the

interests of the United States.” 7 These Orders sought to eliminate the security clearances of the

7
On March 6, 2025, Executive Order 14230 was issued against Perkins Coie LLP; on March 14,
2025, Executive Order 14237 was issued against Paul Weiss; On March 25, 2025, Executive Order
14246 was issued against Jenner & Block; and on March 27, 2025, Executive Order 14250 was
issued against WilmerHale.

-21-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 25 of 33

firms’ attorneys and to terminate the firms’ federal contracts, among other things. The Orders do

not remotely purport to be based on legal process. Rather, they are pure manifestations of the will

and personal animosity of the Executive Branch at this moment in history.

This conduct highlights that this Attorney General and other leaders in the Justice

Department have a demonstrated track record of abandoning process wholesale. When others in

the Justice Department insist that the established processes be followed, they are either fired or

forced to resign. These are not normal times. By directing the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors to seek the

death penalty without affording even a modicum of process to Luigi Mangione, by fashioning this

order in the form of a press release, followed by an Instagram post, followed by a prejudicial

television appearance, the Attorney General is being consistent with the new culture of the highest

levels of the Justice Department, one that values personal will over process, publicity over

discretion and partisan politics over justice. While it is regrettable that the Executive Branch has

abandoned due process in so many areas, this is the very first case where this Justice Department

has abandoned due process in seeking the death penalty. Because they are going to use this Court

to do it, the time for this Court to act is now.

This is admittedly an unusual procedural setting to ask for the Court’s assistance. Certainly,

the prevailing wisdom would be that counsel awaits an Indictment, the assignment of a District

Judge and an eventual Notice of Intent to seek the death penalty. However, by then a tainted grand

jury may have already returned a true bill. Because the Attorney General’s press release stated that

she concluded that two statutory aggravating factors applied to the charged conduct, and that she

said in her television appearance that she was a capital crimes prosecutor and that if there was ever

a death penalty case, this is it, and because she said that she herself had been threatened because

of her decision to seek the death penalty, there is a real chance that she has tainted this grand jury.

-22-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 26 of 33

Also, because it is clear that the Attorney General has made a final decision to seek the

death sentence even without providing counsel with a full opportunity to present mitigating

circumstances (despite our request to do so), there is no meaningful opportunity at this point to

change her mind. She has made it clear that her decision was driven by the administration’s policy

to “Make America Safe Again.” Also, it is clear that she wanted this case to be the administration’s

first death penalty case. She issued the press release around her new Instagram account so she

could advertise her decision to seek the death sentence in this case. Just like the Attorney General

had no interest in adhering to process over the dismissal of the Eric Adams case or the illegal

removal of Abrego Garcia, she has no interest in adhering to process in seeking the death sentence

for Luigi Mangione. The record is clear. The Court does not need any more information than it

now has to conclude that the Attorney General’s order to execute Mr. Mangione is arbitrary,

political and a breach of the established death penalty protocol. This Court does not have to wait

for an Indictment and a Notice of Intent to act. It should take action now and stop this corrupt

process in its tracks.

B. The Attorney General’s Three Public Statements Have Prejudiced the Federal
Case, the New York State Case and the Federal Grand Jury Proceedings

The United States Attorney General is our nation’s highest law enforcement official. Her

three public statements have significantly prejudiced this case, the New York State case, and the

federal grand jury presentation. As for the press release directing the S.D.N.Y. to seek the death

penalty, there is no reason—aside from an improper one—to make this directive publicly. Like

every Attorney General making a death penalty decision before this one, she could have simply

communicated her decision to the line prosecutors within the Justice Department, who would then

notify the defendant.

-23-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 27 of 33

But that was not enough for the Attorney General. Because she wanted to not merely tell

the local prosecutors of her decision, she wanted to tell the world of her decision, including the

grand jurors who will hear this case. She wanted the world, and the grand jurors, to know that her

decision was rooted in the president’s policy, specifically his “agenda to stop violent crime and

Make America Safe Again.” She called the murder “an act of political violence,” even though Mr.

Mangione is charged by complaint with stalking a single person. She signaled to the world, and

the grand jurors, that she—the United States Attorney General—has concluded that the defendant

violated two statutory aggravating factors, one of which she badly mis-stated. Because a grand

jury would have to find these statutory factors present in order to vote a true bill for a death-eligible

offense, the Attorney General’s prejudicial statements go to the heart of what the grand jurors must

decide. United States v. Kee, 2000 WL 863119, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“As the Supreme Court first

made clear in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the concepts of aggravating and mitigating

factors are the foundation of a constitutional capital sentencing scheme.”).

As noted, the Attorney General also never so much as suggested that Mangione was

presumed innocent and that he was still not indicted for any federal crime.

That her real motive was press attention and not merely giving a directive to her line

prosecutors is shown by what she did next. She timed the start of her Instagram Account

specifically around the Mangione press release. She ordered the death penalty and publicly

released her order so she would have “content” for her newly launched Instagram account. Again,

her Instagram postings bear no indication that this defendant is presumed innocent.

In her television appearance, she told viewers that she was a “capital prosecutor,” and that

she “tried death penalty cases throughout my career.” She then assured Americans and prospective

-24-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 28 of 33

jurors that, “if there was ever a death case, this is one.” She then twice stated that the victim was

a CEO in explaining why the death sentence was appropriate.

These statements would be inappropriate and prejudicial in any context. However, the

Attorney General is specifically aware that she has caused the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors to start a grand

jury presentation where they would seek the death penalty. The Court simply cannot sit back and

do nothing while a grand jury is convened which has been exposed to this sort of malicious,

intentional prejudice. Not in any case much less a capital case.

C. The Attorney General Violated Local Rule 23.1

Local Rule 23.1(b) provides as follows:

With respect to a grand jury or other pending investigation of any criminal matter,
a lawyer participating in or associated with the investigation (including government
lawyers…) shall refrain from making any extrajudicial statement that a reasonable
person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication that
goes beyond the public record or that is not necessary to inform the public that the
investigation is underway, to describe the general scope of the investigation, or to
obtain assistance in the apprehension of a suspect, to warn the public of any
dangers, or otherwise to aid in the investigation, if there is a substantial likelihood
that the dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the
administration of justice.

When the Attorney General issued a press release directing the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors to

seek the death penalty, she knew they would do so by commencing a grand jury investigation. The

Attorney General’s public, extrajudicial statements in the initial press release, in her Instagram

post and as part of her television appearance prejudiced the very grand jury proceeding that she

brought about.

Because the Attorney General is directing that the grand jury investigation be commenced,

she is a lawyer “participating in or associated with the investigation.” Accordingly, she is within

the purview of Local Rule 23.1. As such, she has an obligation to “refrain from making any

-25-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 29 of 33

extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of

public communication that goes beyond the public record or that is not necessary to inform the

public that the investigation is underway, to describe the general scope of the investigation, or to

obtain assistance in the apprehension of a suspect, to warn the public of any dangers, or otherwise

to aid in the investigation, if there is a substantial likelihood that the dissemination will interfere

with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the administration of justice.”

The Attorney General’s three statements are extrajudicial statements. For the reasons set

forth above, they are plainly prejudicial toward the administration of justice, which in this case

involves a grand jury considering an indictment that can result in Luigi Mangione being executed.

D. The Government Should Provide Defense Counsel with the Recommendation

of the S.D.N.Y. to The Capital Case Section as Well as All Memoranda
provided to the Capital Case Section or the Attorney General

The recommendation of the S.D.N.Y. as well as all memoranda provided to the Capital

Case Section or the Attorney General would be relevant in the ultimate determination of whether

the Attorney General’s decision is arbitrary and political, on the one hand, or principled and based

on proper procedures, on the other. Accordingly, we ask the Court to direct the Government to

provide these materials to counsel.

E. The Government Should Provide Defense Counsel with Emails, Records,

Documents and Notes of Communications Between a Government Official and
Anyone Advocating for the Death Penalty or Any Penalty on Behalf of Any
Business, Corporate Interest, Lobbyist or Other Party Directly or Indirectly

During her television appearance, the Attorney General stated that a reason she ordered the

death penalty was because the victim was a CEO. This raises the question of why the Attorney

General would be motivated to seek the death sentence because the victim was a CEO when the

professional status of any homicide victim is plainly not a factor either in the relevant statute or

-26-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 30 of 33

the Justice Department’s protocol. If the Justice Department was moved to seek the death sentence

due to any communications by or on behalf of any corporate interest, this would be relevant to a

finding that the death penalty was being applied in an arbitrary manner. Accordingly, the defense

seeks all information that would tend to show that anyone on behalf of any business interest

communicated with the Department of Justice concerning the sentencing of Luigi Mangione.

IV. CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above, we respectfully ask this court to grant the requested relief.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Marc Agnifilo
Jacob Kaplan
AGNIFILO INTRATER LLP
445 Park Ave., 7th Fl.
New York, NY 10022

/s/
Avi Moskowitz
MOSKOWITZ COLSON
GINSBERG & SCHULMAN
80 Broad Street, Suite 1900
New York, NY 10004

-27-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 31 of 33

APPENDIX A

Prior Cases Where the S.D.N.Y. Sought the Death Penalty

On December 11, 1997, the Government filed a NOI as to Clarence Heatley, who was

charged with the murders of eight people, some of which were for pecuniary gain, as part of his

leadership in a continuing criminal enterprise.

On January 8, 1998, the Government filed a NOI as to John Cuff, who was charged with

killing nine people, some of which murders involved torture, as part of his membership in a

continuing criminal enterprise.

On June 2, 1998, the Government filed a NOI as to Deric Frank, who was charged with

murder during a kidnapping, where the murder involved torture or serious abuse of the kidnapping

victim and where the murder was to eliminate a witness to the defendant’s narcotics distribution

business.

On January 28, 1999, the Government filed a NOI as to Peter Rollack, who was charged

with the killing of two people, one of whom Rollack ordered to be murdered while Rollack was

serving a prison sentence in North Carolina. Rollack, who was the head of the Sex Money Murder

Set of the East Coast Bloods, continued to order murders even while incarcerated at the

Metropolitan Detention Center.

On February 4, 2000, the Government filed a NOI as to Jose Santiago, who was charged

with committing murder in furtherance of a racketeering enterprise which involved a grave risk of

death of other persons. As a non-statutory factor, the NOI specifies that the defendant insisted that

the victim would be murdered in front of his wife and children.

On February 7, 2000, the Government filed a NOI as to Charles Michael Kee, who was

charged with murder in aid of racketeering. While the only listed statutory factor was substantial

planning and premeditation, there were three listed non-statutory aggravating factors involving
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 32 of 33

multiple instances of sexual assault of a minor and using minors to commit robberies and other

violent crimes as part of his racketeering enterprise.

On June 26, 2000, the Government filed a NOI as to Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali,

who was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to bomb the United States Embassy in

Nairobi, Kenya, killing 213 persons as part of the international terrorist group Al-Qaeda.

On December 10, 2000, the Government filed a NOI as to Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, who

was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction in connection with the bombing of the U.S.

Embassy in Tanzania, killing 11 persons as part of the international terrorist group Al Qaeda.

On October 26, 2001, the Government filed a NOI as to Alan Quinones, who was charged

with the contract killing of an informant, such murder having involved torture or physical abuse

of the murder victim and as noted, having been done for money. In addition, the murder was part

of the defendant’s membership in a drug distribution racketeering enterprise.

On October 26, 2001, the Government filed a NOI as to Diego Rodriguez, who was charged

with the same contract killing of the informant indicated above.

On March 7, 2003, the Government filed a NOI as to Elijah Bobby Williams, who was

charged with killing three people for pecuniary gain and involving a grave risk of death to others.

As a non-statutory factor, the NOI indicated that the defendant was charged with conspiring to

distribute cocaine and cocaine base contemporaneous with the murders.

On March 7, 2003, the Government filed a NOI as to Michael Williams, who was charged

with killing the same three people under the same circumstances as Elijah Bobby Williams, above.

On February 23, 2004, the Government filed a NOI as to Xavier Williams, who was

charged with killing the same three people under the same circumstances as Michael Williams and

Elijah Bobby Williams, above.

-2-
 Case 1:24-mj-04375-UA Document 16 Filed 04/11/25 Page 33 of 33

On February 19, 2006, the Government filed a NOI as to Charod Becton, who was charged

with killing three people in exchange for pecuniary gain as part of his membership in the

racketeering enterprise Murder Unit. In addition, the defendant tortured one or more of his murder

victims and created a grave risk of death to people other than the murder victims.

On February 24, 2006, the Government filed a NOI as to Darryl Henderson, who was

charged, along with Charod Becton, with killing three people, some of which murders were for

pecuniary gain and involved torture or physical abuse of the murder victim. In addition, the

defendant had a prior conviction for a serious narcotics offense. Also, the three murders were part

of the defendant’s membership in Murder Unit, a violent racketeering enterprise.

On September 13, 2006, the Government filed a NOI as to Khalid Barnes, who was charged

with the murders of two people in exchange for pecuniary gain and as part of his membership in a

violent drug enterprise. He had a prior conviction for interstate travel in aid of racketeering and

was on court supervision for that conviction when he committed the murders.

In September 2018, the Government advised the Court that it was seeking the death penalty

as to Sayfullo Saipov, who was accused of killing 8 people and injuring another 18 people on a

lower Manhattan bike path as part of his purported membership with ISIS.

-3-