It's because of jurisdiction.
Normally, only states have jurisdiction over murders. The feds can charge murder if and only if the murder is connected to some other federal "crime of violence" (e.g. killing a federal official, murder-for-hire across state lines).
Here, the federal 'hook' was interstate stalking. But the federal stalking crime apparently isn't a "crime of violence" because you can stalk without intentional force.
Because the stalking charges don't legally qualify as "crimes of violence", the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the alleged murder.
What do you mean here? They usually get prosecuted by the state.
Because NY state law doesn't allow for the death penalty, and the federal government wanted the death penalty, they intentionally moved it to a federal jurisdiction.
There's a Twitter thread[0] that seems like a reasonable explanation.
[0] https://x.com/adamscochran/status/2017284770158485767 / https://xcancel.com/adamscochran/status/2017284770158485767
I mean, its literally being dismissed because the defendant successfully disputed the murder (as even a valid charge under the prosecutors own allegations.) He also, in the parallel state case which does not rely on the much narrower federal murder statute used in the federal case, is disputing the alleged murder as a matter of fact.
So, it is inaccurate to say “no one is disputing the murder”.
"Murder" refers to an offense under any number of legal provisions, most of them at the state level. Nearly everyone is at least passingly familiar with at least first-, second-, and—since Chauvin—third-degree murder. Many are also familiar with the concept of felony murder.
Nobody is disputing that the premeditated killing alleged in this case legally constitutes murder under New York State law.
Instead, it does not constitute murder for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(5)(B)(i) because the underlying federal offense—stalking—is not a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).
That statute defines a crime of violence as one that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another" or "that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense" (emphasis added).
Physical force is not an element of stalking, nor is there a substantial risk that physical force will be used in the course of stalking, even though it's not altogether uncommon for stalking to lead to acts of violence.
Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered Manhattan federal prosecutors last April to seek the death penalty against Mangione.
...
Judge Margaret Garnett dismissed a federal murder charge that had enabled prosecutors to seek capital punishment, finding it technically flawed.
How many gross errors of basic law and procedure has the current AG made and overseen to date?
In 2020, Bondi was one of President Donald Trump's defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial. By 2024, she led the legal arm of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute. On November 21, 2024, President-elect Trump announced his intention to nominate Bondi for U.S. attorney general after former congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew from consideration.
These are impressive credentials.
What happened is that the feds took an aggressive but plausible legal position, and the district court disagreed. There are concurrent federal and state prosecutions. Ordinarily, murder is a state law charge. Some nexus to the federal government is required to elevate it to a federal crime.
Here, New York doesn’t have the death penalty, so the feds invoked 18 USC 924(c) in connection with a federal stalking charge. That allows the death penalty where someone is killed with a firearm during a federal “crime of violence.” So the question is whether stalking is a “crime of violence.” Seems like it could be, right?
The term “crime of violence” is the subject of a ton of litigation: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2025-04-25_LSB11293_4ec.... So the feds made an aggressive argument to secure the death penalty, and the district court disagreed. There’s nothing incompetent at all. Federal prosecutors sometimes take aggressive legal positions, and federal judges sometimes reject those positions.
You didn’t mention that Bondi was Florida’s AG for 8 years. Even Democrat Senators who voted against her acknowledged she is well qualified: https://www.welch.senate.gov/welch-votes-against-advancing-p... (“Pam Bondi is qualified. She has done outstanding work as an Attorney General, both as a County Prosecutor and as the Florida Attorney General, and I actually quite admire the grit that she had to take on a challenging statewide campaign to become Attorney General”).
Fair point.
I honestly considered adding that but really didn't feel the need to drag her that much given Florida is the state that has Dr. Joseph Ladapo as surgeon general.
I also left out:
U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield’s ruling against acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone III is the fifth time that judges have ruled that a top prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi was serving in the position unlawfully.
Which, once Mangione is convicted, will almost certainly be reviewed at the appellate level.
The appellate court cannot review something that isn't before it, and a conviction on other offenses does not bring counts 3 and 4 of the indictment before the appellate court.
Normally, I would expect there to be a process for an interlocutory appeal when a ruling is fatal to a charged offense. However, again, I'm not familiar enough with title 28 to say if that is in fact the case here.
After senator cut her off and explained what habeas corpus really is, Noem responded:
"I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not."
Such confidence. Even some brazen lies about following court orders sprinkled on top.
The article does not say why the charges were dismissed, though.
Why were these charges dismissed?
Charging Mangione with federal murder connected to a federal stalking charge was relatively unprecedented, but they might get it to stick on appeal. Stalking is threatening but maybe not inherently violent, but that seems similar to bank robbery (where FDIC insurance is frequently used to grant federal jurisdiction over involved homicides).
federal stalking charges have stuck so now life in prison is on the table.
https://apnews.com/article/mangione-unitedhealthcare-death-p...
The judge ruled the backpack evidence can be used.
If you actually believe this you can more than 10x your money [1].
[1] https://polymarket.com/event/luigi-mangione-out-of-custody-b...
I'm not sure why so many people believe that what - jury nullification? - is going to happen.
Eh, if I thought Mangione was justified or effective it would be an easy way to feel good for a while with zero real-world consequences apart from my moral integrity. (Which, to be clear, is mine and mine alone. I have friends–good people whom I love and respect–who would nullify Mangione. They're just never getting seated on his jury without perjuring themselves.)
How confident are you there isn’t at least one juror who hasn’t been harmed by their health insurance, financially or medically? Only takes one.
Who doesn't perjor themselves during voir dire, thereby triggering a mistrial? Pretty confident. Maybe he gets lucky in federal court because Bondi is an idiot. But the state charges are solid, and New York isn't Reddit.
Laws are just loose rules we sometimes collectively adhere to, people are mostly emotion driven.
It's all political at this point.
If they did it in a federal court? Probably. If they did it in the state court? Probably not. New York doesn’t have the death penalty.
Pardons. If he's pardoned there is a good chance he'll kill again. (And inspire copycats.)
We need to eliminate pardons across our system of justice. Between Biden pardoning his son and Trump pardoning the J6'ers, there should be a bipartisan case for closing this.
Why would he be pardoned by the governor at all? Why do you believe Hunter Biden being pardoned is on the same level as J6 being pardoned, when the reasoning (accurately) was to protect him from a perversion of the law in turn?
Your entire argument is essentially “kill them before they can prove they’re not still a threat”.
just randomly appoint people, and stop pretending what we’re doing is working.
Eliminating pardon power doesn’t neuter the Presidency or Governorships. The Romans didn’t even automatically grant the power to dictators.
Not arguing for the pardon power - just demanding better leadership.