It’s a Mistake to Charge Luigi Mangione With Terrorism

Mark Bederow

The murder of the health care executive Brian Thompson on a Midtown Manhattan sidewalk was shocking, brazen and seemingly methodical, but it wasn’t all that sophisticated.

It didn’t take long for the authorities to identify Luigi Mangione as the likely murderer and arrest him. They had surveillance videos and various sightings. They are said to have forensic evidence linking him to the crime. A gun he had when he was arrested in Pennsylvania is said to be the same type of gun as the weapon used in the killing. A notebook attributed to Mr. Mangione is said to have mentioned Mr. Thompson’s company, UnitedHealthcare, and that he planned to shoot a C.E.O. “These parasites had it coming,” he wrote, condemning health care companies for callous greed.

In other words, Manhattan prosecutors have what looks to be a pretty straightforward case of second-degree murder, the charge that is almost always filed in New York State in cases of intentional murder.

But the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, instead has charged Mr. Mangione with first-degree and second-degree murder in furtherance of terrorism (among other charges), which requires lifetime imprisonment in the event of a conviction. (The maximum sentence for second-degree murder without the terrorism charge would be 25 years to life.)

By complicating a simple case, Mr. Bragg has increased the risk of acquittal on the most serious charge and a hung jury on any charge. Since Mr. Mangione is already being celebrated by some as a folk hero because of his rage against the American health care system, the terrorism charge, which alleges that Mr. Mangione “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policies of a unit of government” and “affect the conduct of a unit of government,” almost certainly will turn the case into political theater.

By charging Mr. Mangione as a terrorist, prosecutors are taking on a higher burden to support a dubious theory. In trying to prove that Mr. Mangione killed Mr. Thompson to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” prosecutors will presumably argue that the civilian population comprises health care executives and employees. But New York appellate courts have taken a very limited and fairly traditional view of what constitutes a civilian community under the terrorism law that was enacted within days of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The evidence appears to suggest that Mr. Mangione was bent on assassinating Mr. Thompson rather than intending “to sow terror,” as Mr. Bragg alleged in his news conference unsealing Mr. Mangione’s indictment. Mr. Mangione’s notebook reportedly says that he planned a targeted assassination because he did not want to “risk innocents.” So while this statement incriminates Mr. Mangione as a murderer, it appears to undermine the terrorism charge.

By taking on the burden of trying to prove Mr. Mangione’s essentially political intent, prosecutors could amplify the criticisms of the American health care system that have made Mr. Mangione so alarmingly popular. The district attorney would provide Mr. Mangione a soapbox upon which he will be allowed to rail against the American health care system while trying to garner sympathy.

Given the national debate over the role of insurance companies like Mr. Thompson’s, prosecutors will have a hard time, in any case, weeding out jurors who have some sympathy for the defendant. By turning Mr. Mangione’s supposed intent into a central element of the trial they invite juror nullification, in which jurors ignore their instructions to focus on the facts and instead let their points of view influence their verdict, leading to a hung jury, if not a full acquittal. At a standard second-degree murder trial, the jury would be instructed that the prosecution need only prove that Mr. Mangione committed the crime. Motive does not need to be considered.

Perhaps Mr. Mangione’s most feasible defense would be a psychiatric one, alleging that he is not criminally responsible “by reason of mental disease or defect.” Unless there is persuasive evidence that has yet to be revealed, such a defense would be fairly easily undermined by evidence of Mr. Mangione’s detailed planning, concealment and flight. But the terrorism charge could slightly enhance such a defense if a jury is subjected to Mr. Mangione testifying about his grievances against the health care system and how they led a seemingly intelligent and grounded young man to assassinate an individual he didn’t know simply because he was a top executive at the nation’s largest insurance company.

And if the threat of life without parole is simply being used as a cudgel to leverage a plea to second-degree murder, how would Mr. Bragg justify wiping away the terrorism charge? It brings to mind the Daniel Penny case, in which Mr. Bragg brought a manslaughter charge, then dismissed it when jurors deadlocked, leading to an outright acquittal on even the lesser charge.

The bottom line is that by choosing to make an open-and-shut murder case into a complicated debate on the health care industry, the district attorney risks highlighting the most troubling aspects of the case and making a conviction more difficult.