# Unprecedented Trump Fund & Mangione Rulings

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 20 May 2026, 35 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/9e904187-b099-49a7-8aaf-b450003b015b/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses the $1.8 billion dollar fund set up by the Justice Department to compensate victims of so-called weaponization cases. Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses a judge ruling that the gun and notebook can come into evidence at the Luigi Mangione murder trial. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 1: Another unprecedented action by President Trump and his Justice Department
[0:14] Speaker 1: the creation of a one point eight billion dollar fund
[0:17] Speaker 1: to pay victims of so called government weaponization as part
[0:22] Speaker 1: of a settlement to n Trump's thirty billion dollar lawsuit
[0:25] Speaker 1: against the Internal Revenue Service, a settlement that was not
[0:29] Speaker 1: approved by a judge. Under questioning by Democratic Senator Chris Coons, today,
[0:35] Speaker 1: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had to admit it was
[0:39] Speaker 1: a first.
[0:40] Speaker 2: Has it ever happened that a sitting president sued his
[0:44] Speaker 2: own government for ten billion dollars and then directed the
[0:48] Speaker 2: settlement of the case and the establishment of a payout fund?
[0:51] Speaker 3: Not that I'm aware, but there's a lot of things
[0:53] Speaker 3: that President Trump's the first of it.
[0:55] Speaker 1: And in response to questions from Democratic Senator Chris Van Holland,
[1:00] Speaker 1: Lanche would not rule out that rioters who attacked police
[1:04] Speaker 1: at the Capitol on January sixth could receive payments from
[1:08] Speaker 1: the fund.
[1:09] Speaker 3: Well, individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible
[1:13] Speaker 3: for this.
[1:13] Speaker 4: Fund well, as it makes plain.
[1:17] Speaker 2: Just let me know if they're eligible for the.
[1:19] Speaker 4: Fund, as was made plain, yesterday.
[1:22] Speaker 2: Anybody in this country is eligible to apply.
[1:26] Speaker 1: My guest is an expert in constitutional law, David super,
[1:30] Speaker 1: a professor at Georgetown Law. David, starting with the lawsuit,
[1:34] Speaker 1: let alone the settlement. Have you ever seen a lawsuit
[1:37] Speaker 1: like this, a sitting president suing part of his government
[1:40] Speaker 1: for monetary damages.
[1:43] Speaker 4: No, there hasn't, and there have been some pretty compelling
[1:47] Speaker 4: cases where you might imagine that happening. You could imagine
[1:50] Speaker 4: President Reagan suing for the Secret Service failure to protect
[1:54] Speaker 4: him from John Hinckley. You could imagine some presidents suing
[1:58] Speaker 4: for terrible medical care that they receive the estate of
[2:01] Speaker 4: President Garfield. Perhaps, but this is an example of norms collapsing.
[2:08] Speaker 4: Every president previously, even ones who allowed much more independence
[2:14] Speaker 4: of the Justice Department than President Trump does, understood that
[2:18] Speaker 4: it would be grossly inappropriate for them to sue a
[2:23] Speaker 4: justice department that reported to them.
[2:25] Speaker 1: Basically, the same person is controlling both sides of the lawsuit.
[2:31] Speaker 1: The plaintiff and the defendant are Donald Trump.
[2:35] Speaker 4: Yes, this is a textbook example of collusive litigation. When
[2:39] Speaker 4: there's no adversity, when no claims a fact or law
[2:44] Speaker 4: are checked by anybody with a contrary interest where they're
[2:48] Speaker 4: all agreeing together. It's a settlement agreement between Donald Trump's
[2:53] Speaker 4: private lawyers and Donald Trump's Justice Department lawyers, and the
[2:57] Speaker 4: Supreme Court has said that you can not in the
[3:00] Speaker 4: power of the federal courts on a collusive case. The
[3:03] Speaker 4: federal courts are only there to resolve genuinely adverse controversies,
[3:09] Speaker 4: which this is not.
[3:11] Speaker 1: This was settled and they avoided a Wednesday deadline in
[3:15] Speaker 1: court that would have had them explain whether a case
[3:18] Speaker 1: or controversy exists. So they seem to have settled this
[3:22] Speaker 1: to get around having to appear in court and explain
[3:25] Speaker 1: this case.
[3:26] Speaker 4: Yeah, they're really trying to have it both ways. They
[3:29] Speaker 4: settled it in a big hurry this weekend to avoid
[3:34] Speaker 4: having to explain to the courts why this could be
[3:38] Speaker 4: a case, because they can't, so they make the case
[3:41] Speaker 4: go away before the judge can dismiss it for lack
[3:44] Speaker 4: of jurisdiction. But they use the fact that this case
[3:48] Speaker 4: was here as a justification for this settlement, which provides
[3:54] Speaker 4: a slush fund for whomever President Trump wants to serve.
[3:57] Speaker 1: Doesn't the court usually have to approve a settlement.
[4:01] Speaker 4: The court has to approve a settlement that involves an
[4:04] Speaker 4: order of the court, but this settlement provided for the
[4:08] Speaker 4: dismissal of President Trump's claims, and courts generally don't have
[4:13] Speaker 4: to do that. There are a few exceptions, but this
[4:15] Speaker 4: doesn't really fall into one of them.
[4:17] Speaker 1: The Justice Department has already been approving seven figure payouts
[4:22] Speaker 1: for some Trump allies who claimed they were wrongfully investigated
[4:27] Speaker 1: or prosecuted. For example, one point twenty five million to
[4:31] Speaker 1: former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn, who had actually
[4:36] Speaker 1: pleaded guilty to line to the FBI, and a similar
[4:39] Speaker 1: amount to Carter Paige, a former advisor for Trump's twenty
[4:44] Speaker 1: sixteen campaign. So that's already going on. How is this
[4:48] Speaker 1: fund different?
[4:49] Speaker 4: This is different because it isn't paying damages. I would
[4:55] Speaker 4: be a terribly offended if President Trump ordered the fund
[4:59] Speaker 4: to pay him some large sum of money. That would
[5:02] Speaker 4: be another example of abuse of the fun inclusive litigation.
[5:06] Speaker 4: But this goes much farther. This is basically taking away
[5:10] Speaker 4: the power of the purse from Congress. It is creating
[5:14] Speaker 4: a whole new program that Congress never authorized, that Congress
[5:18] Speaker 4: never appropriated a dime for, and creating it entirely within
[5:24] Speaker 4: the executive branch to spend tax dollars.
[5:27] Speaker 1: How did they even come up with this number one
[5:30] Speaker 1: point eight billion dollars? Where did that even come from?
[5:33] Speaker 4: Well, I'm guessing it came from some marketing person because
[5:36] Speaker 4: it's one point seven seven six billion dollars, which I
[5:41] Speaker 4: guess is meant to invoke what happened in the beginning
[5:46] Speaker 4: of our revolution. But that's rather ironic because our revolution
[5:50] Speaker 4: was against a king who claimed absolute power to himself
[5:56] Speaker 4: and didn't take legislatures and the people very seriously. It's
[6:02] Speaker 4: ironic in the extreme that we are naming something after
[6:06] Speaker 4: our moment of liberty that collapses a very important part
[6:10] Speaker 4: of that liberty.
[6:11] Speaker 1: They're saying that there is going to be a committee,
[6:14] Speaker 1: but the president can fire anyone he wants on the committee.
[6:17] Speaker 1: I mean, are there any safeguards in place?
[6:20] Speaker 4: Absolutely none. This is at one hundred percent slush fund.
[6:23] Speaker 4: The President or the Attorney General will appoint, without Senate confirmation,
[6:28] Speaker 4: all five members of this committee. If any of them
[6:32] Speaker 4: do anything the President doesn't like, he can fire them
[6:35] Speaker 4: and replace them with whomever he wants. So the committee
[6:39] Speaker 4: is completely subservient to the president on both a macrell
[6:44] Speaker 4: and a micro level. So this is allowing the president
[6:48] Speaker 4: to distribute one point seven seven six billion dollars to
[6:54] Speaker 4: whomever he wants, based on whatever they want. There are
[6:57] Speaker 4: plenty of people sitting in federal prison right now who
[7:01] Speaker 4: are clearly innocent and can prove it. But the Supreme
[7:05] Speaker 4: Court has sharply narrowed habeas corpus and similar forms of relief,
[7:10] Speaker 4: So the fact that you are actually innocent is not
[7:14] Speaker 4: sufficient to get your conviction overturned. These are people who
[7:19] Speaker 4: have no evidence that they were innocent, have no evidence
[7:23] Speaker 4: of prosecutorial misconduct, none of that's required here. We're simply
[7:27] Speaker 4: paying them because they are on Team Trump.
[7:29] Speaker 1: I mean, is there anything you can compare this fund
[7:32] Speaker 1: to where the idea even came from.
[7:35] Speaker 4: Well, I could probably find you some precedence in Tammany
[7:38] Speaker 4: Hall and other corrupt political machines. I wouldn't be surprised
[7:43] Speaker 4: if Victor Horbon had a few of these kicking around.
[7:46] Speaker 4: But within the context of American democracy, No. The Dustice
[7:51] Speaker 4: Department's press release compares this to a fund that compensated
[7:56] Speaker 4: Native Americans under the Obama ministry, but that was an
[8:01] Speaker 4: adversarial lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the Justice Department, and
[8:07] Speaker 4: that settlement was approved by a court. It was a
[8:10] Speaker 4: court order, and had there been anything improper there, the
[8:14] Speaker 4: court was entirely free to reject it if it thought
[8:17] Speaker 4: the litigation was collusive, if it thought the settlement was
[8:21] Speaker 4: unjust or was not in the interest in the United States,
[8:24] Speaker 4: there were clear safeguards. By contrast, this whole thing is
[8:27] Speaker 4: designed to avoid judicial scrutiny. They didn't want the judicial
[8:31] Speaker 4: scrutiny that would come tomorrow with a court saying, how
[8:35] Speaker 4: can you possibly be adverse to one another when you're
[8:38] Speaker 4: both controlled by Donald J. Trump.
[8:41] Speaker 1: You've written about this for the Balkanization. Explain why you
[8:44] Speaker 1: think this fund is unlawful.
[8:47] Speaker 4: Article one of our constitutions says that no money shall
[8:51] Speaker 4: be drawn from the Treasury except where Congress has enacted
[8:56] Speaker 4: and appropriation, and the Anti Deficiency Act, which goes back
[9:01] Speaker 4: over one hundred years, gives teeth to that and makes
[9:04] Speaker 4: it a federal crime with two years in prison if
[9:07] Speaker 4: you distribute federal funds without a valid appropriation. This is
[9:14] Speaker 4: an attempt to circumvent that. They're claiming they can use
[9:17] Speaker 4: the judgment fund, which is an appropriation, but it's four
[9:23] Speaker 4: settlements arrived at in accordance with law, and one provision
[9:27] Speaker 4: of federal law says you cannot obtain the jurisdiction of
[9:31] Speaker 4: the federal courts collusively. Another provision of federal law says
[9:36] Speaker 4: that federal lawyers have to follow the same ethical rules
[9:39] Speaker 4: that apply in their states, and those rules prohibit collusive litigation.
[9:46] Speaker 4: So the very fact that this case is Donald Trump
[9:49] Speaker 4: versus Donald Trump means that it is not eligible to
[9:53] Speaker 4: be settled under the judgment fund.
[9:56] Speaker 1: So, in light of the settlement, the judge has closed
[9:59] Speaker 1: the case involving Trump's suit against the irs. But Democrats
[10:04] Speaker 1: are asking a court to block the settlement, saying it
[10:08] Speaker 1: lacks the bare minimum required to file a lawsuit. Two
[10:12] Speaker 1: opposing parties and nearly one hundred Democrats signed in a
[10:16] Speaker 1: meekus brief in the District Court for the Southern District
[10:20] Speaker 1: of Florida. But do they have standing to bring a lawsuit?
[10:25] Speaker 4: Arguably they don't need standing, because every federal court is
[10:30] Speaker 4: obliged to determine its own jurisdiction even if nobody was standing.
[10:35] Speaker 4: Raises it if you and I decide that we're going
[10:38] Speaker 4: to have a lawsuit in federal court and there's no jurisdiction.
[10:42] Speaker 4: The court will kick us out, even though you and
[10:44] Speaker 4: I are both very happy to be there. So the
[10:48] Speaker 4: Democrats can ask the case to be kicked out. The
[10:52] Speaker 4: problem is it already has been. That's the essence of
[10:55] Speaker 4: the settlement is that Trump the plaintiff, agreed with Trump
[10:59] Speaker 4: the defendant, to dismiss the case. And the worst that
[11:03] Speaker 4: a court could do probably is dismiss the case. I
[11:07] Speaker 4: suppose they could sanction the lawyers.
[11:10] Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
[11:12] Speaker 1: this conversation with Georgetown Law professor David Super. Are there
[11:16] Speaker 1: any remaining legal impediments to this weaponization fund? I'm June
[11:21] Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. The US government has
[11:28] Speaker 1: agreed to permanently drop tax claims against President Trump as
[11:33] Speaker 1: part of a settlement deal to resolve Trump's ten billion
[11:36] Speaker 1: dollar lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak
[11:41] Speaker 1: of his tax returns. The same deal is resulting in
[11:44] Speaker 1: a nearly one point eight billion dollar fund to compensate
[11:48] Speaker 1: individuals who believe they were targeted politically. I've been talking
[11:53] Speaker 1: to Professor David Super of Georgetown Law. David doesn't seem
[11:57] Speaker 1: like the Justice Department has covered all the bases. Is
[12:00] Speaker 1: there any legal impediment to this fund?
[12:03] Speaker 4: I don't think so. Usually when the administration does something
[12:07] Speaker 4: Congress doesn't like, the answer is, well, cut off funding.
[12:11] Speaker 4: But here Congress never provided funding for something like this,
[12:15] Speaker 4: so there's no funding to cut off. Congress. I suppose
[12:18] Speaker 4: could try to pass a law saying don't do this.
[12:21] Speaker 4: The President would obviously veto it. But even if they
[12:25] Speaker 4: did that, the President would say what's done is done.
[12:29] Speaker 4: This is gone. The Supreme Court could entertain a lawsuit
[12:35] Speaker 4: that this is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held many years
[12:40] Speaker 4: ago that the only way to enforce the establishment clause
[12:44] Speaker 4: that prohibits government from funding religion is to allow individual
[12:48] Speaker 4: taxpayers to sue that their moneies are being inappropriately spent.
[12:52] Speaker 4: They could say absolutely the same thing about the appropriation's clause,
[12:56] Speaker 4: that when taxpayers allege that their money is being taken
[12:59] Speaker 4: without an appropriation from Congress, that they can get into court.
[13:03] Speaker 4: But given how cooperative this Supreme Court has been with
[13:06] Speaker 4: the president, I don't see that very likely.
[13:10] Speaker 1: And so we had Todd blanche in his testimony not
[13:13] Speaker 1: ruling out anything, not ruling out heyout to people who
[13:17] Speaker 1: are convicted of attacking police officers. So there are no
[13:22] Speaker 1: boundaries here. Also, there's no indication that any of this
[13:26] Speaker 1: would be known to the public. You know, Blanche started
[13:29] Speaker 1: talking about privacy concerns.
[13:31] Speaker 4: Well, they require a confidential report of who is paid
[13:37] Speaker 4: to be submitted to the Attorney General. Now, what is
[13:41] Speaker 4: and it's not a public record is not a matter
[13:43] Speaker 4: for the Attorney General or the president to determine. It's
[13:49] Speaker 4: a matter of the Freedom of Information Act. So I
[13:51] Speaker 4: believe there's a good chance that this will eventually come out.
[13:56] Speaker 4: But in the meantime, they have a slush fund that
[13:59] Speaker 4: they can pay any one they want. And saying we
[14:02] Speaker 4: wouldn't make a payment to people who assaulted police isn't
[14:06] Speaker 4: very persuasive from people who have pardoned or commuted the
[14:10] Speaker 4: sentences of people who assaulted police. Clearly, if you assault
[14:14] Speaker 4: police on behalf of team Trump, there's a different standard.
[14:18] Speaker 1: We've watched as Todd Blanche has had James Comi indicted,
[14:23] Speaker 1: he has you know, indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center.
[14:27] Speaker 1: You know, people say this is sort of him trying out,
[14:30] Speaker 1: trying to be the attorney general that Trump wants. This
[14:34] Speaker 1: seems to be like the highlight of it. They're doing
[14:37] Speaker 1: this without any supervision from a court, just doing what
[14:41] Speaker 1: they want. It seems to me like one of the
[14:43] Speaker 1: most egregious things the Justice Department has done under Trump.
[14:48] Speaker 4: They have been for some time taking advantage of the
[14:52] Speaker 4: Supreme Court's restrictions on access to federal court to do
[14:56] Speaker 4: things that are not legally defensible, but where they won't
[14:59] Speaker 4: be forced to defend themselves in court because the Supreme
[15:03] Speaker 4: Court disallows the challenges. So the notion of doing something
[15:08] Speaker 4: that's unlawful but unlitigable is actually old news for these people.
[15:14] Speaker 4: They didn't put together something that's legal here. They actually
[15:18] Speaker 4: misdrafted the papers. So this isn't really eligible for payment
[15:23] Speaker 4: from the judgment fund because the amount that is specified
[15:27] Speaker 4: in the press releases is not in the settlement papers.
[15:31] Speaker 4: So you can't say that they have to draw one
[15:34] Speaker 4: point seven seven six billion from the judgment fund to
[15:39] Speaker 4: settle the case, because on the terms they settle it
[15:42] Speaker 4: for one dollar would suffice everything above. That is Todd
[15:47] Speaker 4: Blanche giving a gift to his boss, probably in the
[15:50] Speaker 4: hopes of getting the word acting knocked off of his title.
[15:53] Speaker 1: And I just wanted to explain. So there is a
[15:56] Speaker 1: fund where the Justice Department doesn't have to get court
[16:00] Speaker 1: approval and can pay out settlements to people like it
[16:04] Speaker 1: has done to Michael Flynn, even though Michael Flynn had
[16:07] Speaker 1: pleaded guilty and then took it back and Carter Page.
[16:10] Speaker 1: So they have other ways of compensating people that they
[16:14] Speaker 1: want to without needing any approval from a court.
[16:18] Speaker 4: They do so in that sense, this is nothing new.
[16:21] Speaker 4: This is taking it to an industrial scale, and it's
[16:24] Speaker 4: saving the people who were tried and convicted of assaulting
[16:30] Speaker 4: Congress or other unlawful acts and saying you don't have
[16:35] Speaker 4: to pay for a lawyer, you don't have to file acclaim,
[16:38] Speaker 4: you don't have to go through the procedures anyone else
[16:40] Speaker 4: would go through. Just send us a letter, tell us
[16:43] Speaker 4: how you were harmed, and the check will be in
[16:45] Speaker 4: the mail.
[16:46] Speaker 1: The second Trump administration has been all about trying to
[16:49] Speaker 1: erase what happened on January sixth, and it seems to
[16:53] Speaker 1: be more and more blatant, and that the Justice Department
[16:58] Speaker 1: doesn't care anymore about following the rules, or at least
[17:03] Speaker 1: giving the appearance of following the rules.
[17:06] Speaker 4: No, they don't, and the very sloppiness with which this
[17:09] Speaker 4: is drafted. The huge departures between the press release and
[17:14] Speaker 4: what's actually in the document, and the blatant disregard of
[17:18] Speaker 4: federal law and the Constitution is rather striking. Here, I
[17:22] Speaker 4: should say this is not limited to January sixth people. Indeed,
[17:25] Speaker 4: January sixth isn't even mentioned in the settlement, So it's
[17:29] Speaker 4: whomever they want to give money to. If you want
[17:32] Speaker 4: to give money to a campaign worker who says that
[17:37] Speaker 4: they were stressed out when Trump lost, there's nothing to
[17:41] Speaker 4: stop them from doing that and no way to check it.
[17:45] Speaker 4: The only limitation here, and this may be real, is
[17:49] Speaker 4: that because these are payments without a valid appropriation, they
[17:52] Speaker 4: are violations of the Anti Deficiency Act, which means they're felonies.
[17:56] Speaker 4: And I think most people will expect that on the
[17:58] Speaker 4: way out, President Trump will arden Todd Blanche and Stanley
[18:02] Speaker 4: Woodard and all the top level people. But if you're
[18:05] Speaker 4: a rank and file Treasury or Justice Department official and
[18:09] Speaker 4: you're being asked to participate in this thing, this is
[18:11] Speaker 4: a felony. You are perting yourself in personal criminal jeopardy.
[18:15] Speaker 4: The statute of limitations is five years, which will run
[18:19] Speaker 4: after this term of presidency is over. I think we're
[18:23] Speaker 4: going to see some people making some very difficult choices
[18:26] Speaker 4: in those agencies as to whether they want to be
[18:28] Speaker 4: involved with this and risk criminal liability.
[18:32] Speaker 1: This issue, though, does seem to be resonating with people.
[18:36] Speaker 4: I think this is resonating with people because of the
[18:39] Speaker 4: blatancy of the corruption of it. I was speaking earlier
[18:42] Speaker 4: to a reporter from another country, and she said, excuse
[18:46] Speaker 4: me for asking. I'm from such and such a country,
[18:50] Speaker 4: which is very corrupt, and I said, well, I'm an
[18:52] Speaker 4: American and at this point we're pretty corrupt too.
[18:57] Speaker 1: A New York State Court judge has ruled that secutors
[19:00] Speaker 1: can use a gun and notebook seized from Luigi Mangioni's
[19:05] Speaker 1: backpack against him at his trial for the killing of
[19:08] Speaker 1: United Healthcare Group executive Brian Thompson, but ruled that other
[19:13] Speaker 1: evidence was improperly obtained. Judge Gregory Carro said police had
[19:18] Speaker 1: obtained a warrant when they seized evidence, including a nine
[19:21] Speaker 1: millimeter gun and a notebook where Mangioni discussed his desire
[19:26] Speaker 1: to quote Whack a CEO, but that officers in Altoona, Pennsylvania,
[19:31] Speaker 1: improperly searched his backpack at a McDonald's earlier that day,
[19:36] Speaker 1: joining me his former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner.
[19:40] Speaker 1: McCarter in English, Bob, give us the background here to.
[19:44] Speaker 3: Set the stage here, police responded to a McDonald's in Altuna,
[19:48] Speaker 3: Pennsylvania after receiving a call about a suspicious person who
[19:54] Speaker 3: looked like the alleged shooter of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
[19:59] Speaker 3: Local police showed up and began questioning mister Mangioni and
[20:04] Speaker 3: later searched his backpack.
[20:06] Speaker 4: The focus of.
[20:07] Speaker 3: The hearing was whether or not the evidence discovered by
[20:12] Speaker 3: local police and later by the federal government in connection
[20:16] Speaker 3: with the search of the backpack would be admissible at trial, and.
[20:21] Speaker 1: The defense claimed that the police needed a warrant before
[20:25] Speaker 1: they could search.
[20:26] Speaker 4: Yeah.
[20:26] Speaker 3: So this is really interesting because it was a critical
[20:30] Speaker 3: hearing for the defense. Should the defense succeed here and
[20:35] Speaker 3: should the court have ruled that the evidence that was
[20:38] Speaker 3: later found in Luigi Mangioni's backpack would be excluded a trial,
[20:42] Speaker 3: it would have been a huge setback for prosecutors. There
[20:45] Speaker 3: was an enormous amount at stake here for both sides.
[20:49] Speaker 3: The defense argued in a day's long hearing last December
[20:53] Speaker 3: that the evidence in the backpack should be thrown out
[20:56] Speaker 3: because police searched the backpack, which contained mister many belongings,
[21:01] Speaker 3: without a warrant. They said that basically police did not
[21:04] Speaker 3: follow a proper protocol, that he posed no threat to
[21:07] Speaker 3: them at the time, and that there was no basis
[21:09] Speaker 3: to search the backpack. And the fact is that a
[21:12] Speaker 3: warrant was not obtained for the search of that backpack
[21:15] Speaker 3: until seven hours after mister Mangioni was in.
[21:18] Speaker 1: Custody and tell us about the judges ruling.
[21:21] Speaker 3: So the judge ultimately issued a mixed ruling, which was
[21:25] Speaker 3: largely a victory for prosecutors but also gave some small
[21:30] Speaker 3: victory to the defense. The judge ruled that prosecutors could
[21:35] Speaker 3: use certain evidence that was seized at an inventory search
[21:40] Speaker 3: later at the police station, but could not allow evidence
[21:44] Speaker 3: that they seized during a search at the McDonald's. Basically,
[21:48] Speaker 3: the judge decided that the search at the McDonald's that
[21:52] Speaker 3: was conducted while they were questioning mister Mangioni was an illegal, improper,
[21:56] Speaker 3: warrantless search. The prosecution tried to argue that local police
[22:01] Speaker 3: searched the backpack at the McDonald's for public safety reasons,
[22:05] Speaker 3: but the judge did not accept that, saying that the
[22:08] Speaker 3: backpack had been moved out of mister mangoni's reach and
[22:12] Speaker 3: no longer posed any public health or safety issue, and
[22:17] Speaker 3: therefore that search was not permitted. There was a subsequent
[22:21] Speaker 3: search after mister Mangioni was arrested and brought to the
[22:24] Speaker 3: police station. That was an inventory search, in other words,
[22:27] Speaker 3: a search that was done in connection with going through
[22:31] Speaker 3: the belongings of somebody who was then under arrest. An
[22:35] Speaker 3: items seized during that inventory search, the judge said, would
[22:39] Speaker 3: be permitted to be used by prosecutors at the trial.
[22:42] Speaker 1: Why to take police seven hours to get a search warrant?
[22:47] Speaker 1: I mean, is that unusual? They concluded that it was
[22:49] Speaker 1: Luigi Mangoni, and he was the suspect before they left
[22:54] Speaker 1: that McDonald's.
[22:55] Speaker 3: Well, once they arrested him, they certainly could have obtained
[22:59] Speaker 3: a warrant based upon evidence that they had. Mister Mangoni
[23:03] Speaker 3: had presented a false identification, and there was other evidence
[23:07] Speaker 3: that they had that tied him to the crime, and
[23:10] Speaker 3: he was certainly a prime suspect at that point in time.
[23:13] Speaker 3: Prosecutors could have gotten a warrant, but waited, and instead
[23:17] Speaker 3: local police searched the backpack in connection with this inventory
[23:22] Speaker 3: and the judge allowed it in. That would have been
[23:24] Speaker 3: a major blow to the prosecution if that evidence was excluded,
[23:30] Speaker 3: but in this case the judge excluded certain items. He
[23:34] Speaker 3: excluded for example, a loaded magazine, a passport, a wallet,
[23:39] Speaker 3: a cell phone, and a computer chip. All of those
[23:41] Speaker 3: items were taken from mister Mangoni's backpack at the McDonald's,
[23:46] Speaker 3: and the judge ruled that that was an improper warrantless search.
[23:49] Speaker 3: But the big victory here for prosecutors was at the
[23:52] Speaker 3: subsequent search back at the police station, they found a
[23:57] Speaker 3: gun which was allegedly the weapon u to shoot the
[24:01] Speaker 3: victim here, and also a notebook that contained, according to prosecutors,
[24:07] Speaker 3: mister mangon He's manifesto. This is where he has writings
[24:10] Speaker 3: where he goes on about national health care and about
[24:14] Speaker 3: how insurance companies are doing damage to people by delaying
[24:18] Speaker 3: and denying them coverage. This is really the critical piece
[24:22] Speaker 3: of evidence because it goes to his intent, it goes
[24:25] Speaker 3: to a state of mind, and there's no question the
[24:27] Speaker 3: prosecutors will be relying largely on that notebook and on
[24:32] Speaker 3: what they will allege is the murder weapon itself. When
[24:35] Speaker 3: this case goes to.
[24:36] Speaker 1: Trial, why do you think the federal judge, who look
[24:38] Speaker 1: at the same circumstances decide to let everything in.
[24:42] Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a good question.
[24:43] Speaker 3: He had two judges, one State Cork judge, one federal judge.
[24:47] Speaker 3: They were applying different law. The New York judge looked
[24:50] Speaker 3: at the case differently than the federal judge.
[24:52] Speaker 4: The federal judge.
[24:53] Speaker 3: Allowed everything in. As you said, there was nothing that
[24:56] Speaker 3: was suppressed by the federal judge in the second trial.
[24:59] Speaker 3: But the State a Cork judge here, I think, was
[25:02] Speaker 3: somewhat troubled by what went on at the McDonald's and
[25:05] Speaker 3: suppressed certain pieces of evidence, But at the end of
[25:08] Speaker 3: the day, the critical pieces of evidence was allowed in.
[25:12] Speaker 3: And I think here, when you look at the decision
[25:14] Speaker 3: by the State Cork judge, he put great weight on
[25:17] Speaker 3: the fact that the police officers began to search through
[25:21] Speaker 3: the backpack and when they found the gun magazine, they
[25:25] Speaker 3: immediately stopped. They also found the notebook, but allegedly did
[25:28] Speaker 3: not look in to see what the writings were, but
[25:31] Speaker 3: they stopped searching at that point, and the court seemed
[25:33] Speaker 3: to give certain weight to the fact that they held
[25:36] Speaker 3: off searching at that point and then did not continue
[25:39] Speaker 3: to search until mister Mangoni was in custody back at
[25:42] Speaker 3: the police station, and then the search was done in
[25:45] Speaker 3: an inventory search, not at a search incident to arrest
[25:49] Speaker 3: at the McDonald's.
[25:50] Speaker 1: So, defense attorneys often, I don't know always, but very
[25:55] Speaker 1: often make motions to have evidence suppressed. Have you ever
[25:59] Speaker 1: seen a case where the judge was, I don't know,
[26:01] Speaker 1: gutsy enough to throw out all the evidence from a
[26:06] Speaker 1: tainted search. I mean, it seems like these are just
[26:09] Speaker 1: uphill battles, no matter what the facts are.
[26:11] Speaker 3: Well, they are uphill battles. And you're absolutely right that
[26:14] Speaker 3: this is the type of motion that is made in
[26:17] Speaker 3: every criminal case. Whenever there is a search, whether it's
[26:21] Speaker 3: done by search warrant, or a search is in to arrest,
[26:24] Speaker 3: and evidence is obtained as a result of that search
[26:27] Speaker 3: that's critical to the prosecution, the first thing defense lawyers
[26:31] Speaker 3: are going to do is to try to suppress that evidence,
[26:34] Speaker 3: because if that evidence doesn't come in at trial in
[26:37] Speaker 3: certain cases, it can be very difficult for prosecutors to
[26:40] Speaker 3: make their case. This case, given all the notoriety and
[26:44] Speaker 3: the publicity surrounding it, put enormous weight on the court
[26:48] Speaker 3: in making a decision, because a judge, when you put
[26:51] Speaker 3: in a difficult circumstance if they rule to suppress key
[26:55] Speaker 3: evidence in a case like this where there's so much publicity.
[26:58] Speaker 3: But in this case, the word judge certainly spent a
[27:02] Speaker 3: long time. There was an extensive hearing, There were days
[27:05] Speaker 3: of testimony. They judge sat through hours and hours of
[27:08] Speaker 3: bodycam video footage and her testimony from many law enforcement
[27:13] Speaker 3: officers on the scene at the time of the arrest.
[27:15] Speaker 3: So the judge spent a considerable amount of time considering
[27:18] Speaker 3: this and then it took him months to finally render
[27:21] Speaker 3: a decision on this. But at the end of the day,
[27:23] Speaker 3: while he gave some small victory to the defense, he
[27:27] Speaker 3: did largely rule in favor of the prosecution. And if
[27:30] Speaker 3: you're the prosecutor and you have the alleged murder weapon
[27:33] Speaker 3: and you have the notebook containing the alleged manifesto, you're
[27:36] Speaker 3: feeling pretty good about your chances of conviction at the
[27:39] Speaker 3: end of a trial.
[27:40] Speaker 1: Yeah, so, now let's talk about statements that man Gioni
[27:43] Speaker 1: made to police in the McDonald's. The judge also parsed
[27:48] Speaker 1: that very carefully down to the minute, after.
[27:52] Speaker 3: Hearing extensive testimony from law enforcement about the circumstances surrounding
[27:58] Speaker 3: the arrest. The court ultimately rule that statements made by
[28:02] Speaker 3: mister Mangeoni at the McDonald's before he was in custody
[28:06] Speaker 3: will be allowed as evidence a trial, but not statements
[28:09] Speaker 3: he made in response to police questioning after he was
[28:12] Speaker 3: in custody. The judge said he would allow jurors hear
[28:15] Speaker 3: mister Mangoni's statements to correction officers while he was incarcerated,
[28:19] Speaker 3: but that's because those statements were, the judge found spontaneous
[28:24] Speaker 3: or part of casual conversation and not in response to questioning.
[28:28] Speaker 3: So what the judge basically did here is he found
[28:31] Speaker 3: that the statements that were made before mister Mangoni was
[28:35] Speaker 3: actually in custody we're.
[28:37] Speaker 4: Going to be allowed.
[28:39] Speaker 3: But he did find that once he decided to no
[28:43] Speaker 3: longer talk with law enforcement, that law enforcement should have
[28:47] Speaker 3: stopped questioning him, and statements he made in response to
[28:50] Speaker 3: that questioning after he was in custody will not be
[28:52] Speaker 3: permitted at the trial. Will be admitted, and so prosecutors,
[28:56] Speaker 3: I think are not too discouraged by this ruling.
[29:00] Speaker 1: Point. As you mentioned, it seems like the strategy of
[29:02] Speaker 1: the defense has been in both the federal and the
[29:05] Speaker 1: state case to try to get evidence excluded, to try
[29:08] Speaker 1: to get statements excluded. Now we're coming up on trial
[29:12] Speaker 1: and I'm wondering what the defense strategy could be in
[29:16] Speaker 1: light of the fact that the prosecution has so much evidence,
[29:20] Speaker 1: seemingly has so much evidence tying him to the scene.
[29:24] Speaker 1: I mean, we haven't heard anything about it insanity defense
[29:27] Speaker 1: or anything like that. Is it just jury nullification.
[29:31] Speaker 3: Well, there's a huge difference between being a prosecutor and
[29:35] Speaker 3: being a defense lawyer in the way the case is
[29:37] Speaker 3: presented a trial. Prosecutors have the burden of proof. It's
[29:41] Speaker 3: beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the highest standard in our
[29:44] Speaker 3: legal system, and so their job is to present overwhelming
[29:48] Speaker 3: evidence that the defendant is guilty. The defense, on the
[29:52] Speaker 3: other hand, doesn't have to present anything. They don't have
[29:54] Speaker 3: to put their client on the stand, they don't have
[29:57] Speaker 3: to present any witnesses. They have no proof whatsoever, and
[30:01] Speaker 3: so what they will typically do is not necessarily present
[30:06] Speaker 3: a counter narrative, in other words, a different version of events.
[30:10] Speaker 3: But they will try to poke holes in the government's case.
[30:13] Speaker 3: And so what they'll do is they'll see the way
[30:15] Speaker 3: the case goes into trial, They'll cross examine the government's witnesses,
[30:18] Speaker 3: and if they can find any area where the government
[30:22] Speaker 3: may have a weakness, they try to exploit that and
[30:25] Speaker 3: ultimately argue to the jury that there's reasonable doubt here
[30:28] Speaker 3: that the government has not met its burden. So I
[30:31] Speaker 3: suspect what will happen here is that the defense will
[30:34] Speaker 3: be largely based on the government's not meeting its burden
[30:38] Speaker 3: of proof, arguing that the prosecution could have presented more evidence,
[30:44] Speaker 3: that the prosecution hasn't nailed down every piece of evidence
[30:48] Speaker 3: tying luigi ev angility to this crime. But at the
[30:51] Speaker 3: same time, I think we can certainly expect the undercurrents
[30:55] Speaker 3: of a jury nullification argument, and that is basically arguing
[30:59] Speaker 3: tours that even if the defendant committed the crime, you
[31:04] Speaker 3: shouldn't convict him for some other reason. It's not a
[31:07] Speaker 3: legal defense, it's more of an emotional reaction by jurors.
[31:12] Speaker 3: And this case has already generated a ground spoil of
[31:16] Speaker 3: support for Luigi Mangioni, which is surprising. He allegedly gunns
[31:21] Speaker 3: somebody down in cold blood on the streets of New York,
[31:24] Speaker 3: and yet there are many people even showing up at
[31:26] Speaker 3: these hearings so far, and certainly will be present at
[31:30] Speaker 3: the trials supporting him because of the position he allegedly
[31:34] Speaker 3: took with regard to healthcare in this country, and specifically
[31:38] Speaker 3: with regard to health insurers who many people, according to
[31:42] Speaker 3: mister Mangione's manifesto and others, believe are improperly denying people
[31:48] Speaker 3: reimbursement and the ability to have access to proper health care.
[31:52] Speaker 3: So I think you can expect to see the defense
[31:54] Speaker 3: play that card and play that up at trial in
[31:58] Speaker 3: the hopes that at least one menamber of the jury
[32:01] Speaker 3: may be sympathetic to him and to his cause and
[32:04] Speaker 3: to be willing to overlook some of the evidence that
[32:08] Speaker 3: prosecutors have at trial, and if they can get even
[32:11] Speaker 3: one juror to agree with them, lay will at least
[32:13] Speaker 3: get a mistrial and prosecutors will have to try the
[32:16] Speaker 3: case all over again.
[32:18] Speaker 1: Bob, do you think it'll be difficult to get a
[32:20] Speaker 1: jury because this is the kind of case. I mean,
[32:22] Speaker 1: not only people who sympathize with him. But there are
[32:26] Speaker 1: people who want to get on famous cases, and I'm
[32:29] Speaker 1: wondering how hard it will be to, you know, for
[32:31] Speaker 1: the state. I guess mostly for the state to sift
[32:34] Speaker 1: those people out.
[32:36] Speaker 2: Well.
[32:36] Speaker 3: As you say, a very high profile case, you're going
[32:39] Speaker 3: to find lots of jurors who will have heard about
[32:41] Speaker 3: this case. But the standard for getting on the jury,
[32:45] Speaker 3: when jurors are questioned by the court and questioned by
[32:49] Speaker 3: both council is not whether they know anything about the case,
[32:52] Speaker 3: but whether they can remain impartial. In other words, whether
[32:56] Speaker 3: they can make a decision based solely on the evidence
[32:59] Speaker 3: that's presented at the trial and not based upon any
[33:02] Speaker 3: outside information or any preconceived notions going into the trial.
[33:07] Speaker 3: A case like this, there is a lot of notoriety.
[33:10] Speaker 3: There may be people who will want to be on
[33:11] Speaker 3: the jury just for the opportunity to say that they
[33:15] Speaker 3: sat in a jury for a case like this that
[33:17] Speaker 3: has so much publicity, And both sides are going to
[33:19] Speaker 3: be challenged to pictures who each side believes could be fair.
[33:24] Speaker 3: Prosecutors are going to look for somebody who is by
[33:28] Speaker 3: the book, who follows the rules, a law enforcement type
[33:31] Speaker 3: of person, not somebody who necessarily has a particular bent
[33:37] Speaker 3: towards social justice and that sort of thing, more of
[33:40] Speaker 3: a law and order type person, while the defense is
[33:43] Speaker 3: going to be looking for jurors who might look at
[33:46] Speaker 3: the case through a different lens, somebody who will listen
[33:50] Speaker 3: to the arguments that they may make, not only about
[33:53] Speaker 3: the insufficiency of the government's evidence, but also perhaps be
[33:57] Speaker 3: sympathetic to mister Mangioni's overall cause if you believe the
[34:02] Speaker 3: information that was presented in his notebook, and if the
[34:05] Speaker 3: defense argues that the information in the notebook was something
[34:10] Speaker 3: that mister mange Joni believed, although he never acted on
[34:13] Speaker 3: those statements, and they're going to certainly deny that he
[34:16] Speaker 3: committed the crime. So they're going to be looking for
[34:18] Speaker 3: two very different types of jurors. That'll be very interesting
[34:21] Speaker 3: to see who ultimately ends up on this jury and
[34:25] Speaker 3: which sides gets more jurors who might be predisposed to
[34:29] Speaker 3: listen to their arguments.
[34:30] Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Bob. That's former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz,
[34:34] Speaker 1: a partner at Carter in English. And that's it for
[34:37] Speaker 1: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
[34:40] Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
[34:43] Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
[34:47] Speaker 1: www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and
[34:52] Speaker 1: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
[34:55] Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
[34:58] Speaker 1: you're listening to bloom

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.