Lawyers representing Luigi Mangione are now pressing a New York judge to compel Attorney General Pam Bondi to formally certify she has read a local court rule governing public comments by prosecutors.

The request was made in a reply filed by the defense on Wednesday. It targets Local Criminal Rule 23.1, which restricts extrajudicial statements that could influence a jury pool.

The defense’s move comes as the Department of Justice, under Bondi’s direction, seeks the death penalty for Mangione in connection with the December 2024 murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Mangione’s attorneys argue that Bondi’s public remarks about the case have already jeopardized their client’s right to a fair hearing and that formal acknowledgment of Rule 23.1 is necessary to prevent further violations.

Newsweek reached out to Mangione’s legal team and the Justice Department for comment.

Why It Matters

Local Criminal Rule 23.1 prohibits attorneys involved in criminal proceedings from making public statements that have a “substantial likelihood” of interfering with a fair trial or prejudicing the administration of justice.

Mangione’s team argues that Bondi’s comments may have violated this standard. They are asking the court to restrain her from making additional public declarations without acknowledging the rule.

Karen Friedman Agnifilo, an attorney who represents Mangione, first accused Bondi of making statements that violate the rule in a motion filed April 11.

“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,” Friedman Agnifilo wrote.

Luigi Mangione, accused of fatally shooting Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, appears in Manhattan state court on February 21, 2025. Luigi Mangione, accused of fatally shooting Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, appears in Manhattan state court on February 21, 2025. Curtis Means/Pool Photo via AP

What To Know

Mangione was charged with one count of federal murder, two counts of stalking, and a firearms offense in December 2024. He is also facing charges at the state level in New York and Pennsylvania.

On April 1, Bondi issued a directive to pursue the death penalty, describing the act as “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,” Bondi said in a statement from the Justice Department.

In response, Mangione’s counsel filed a motion seeking, among other things, to bar the government from pursuing the death penalty and to ensure that grand jurors are screened for bias resulting from Bondi’s comments.

They are also requesting that the Justice Department produce internal memos, communications, and records related to the decision on the death penalty, including any communications with third parties who advocated for specific outcomes in the case.

What People Are Saying

Luigi Mangione’s attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, in a motion: “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.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a Fox News interview on April 6: “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.”

What Happens Next

The judge has not yet ruled on the motion. In their filing, Mangione’s attorneys stressed that federal deadlines for indictment or preliminary hearing are set to expire on Friday. They argued that without judicial intervention, the government “will continue to violate Mr. Mangione’s due process rights.”

Bondi has not publicly responded to the request for certification of Rule 23.1.

Mangione’s legal team believes that ensuring compliance with Rule 23.1 is necessary to prevent “prejudicial public statements” that could sway the grand jury’s decision on whether to indict on death-eligible charges.

Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact [email protected].