The evidence that matters most is staying in.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro ruled on May 18 that prosecutors can use the alleged ghost gun and handwritten notebook seized from Luigi Mangione at trial.

The ruling is a major blow to Mangione’s defense team, which had fought to suppress the physical evidence recovered from his backpack.

Mangione, 28, is charged with the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, who was shot and killed outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel on December 4, 2024.

Mangione has pleaded not guilty.

The defense had argued that the initial search of Mangione’s backpack during his arrest at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania was improper, and that evidence obtained as a result should be excluded.

Judge Carro did suppress some items from that initial backpack search, a partial win for the defense.

But the ruling that matters is the one the defense lost.

The alleged 3D-printed gun and a notebook containing writings that prosecutors say reveal Mangione’s motive and planning will both be presented to jurors.

Those are the two most devastating pieces of physical evidence in the case, and the prosecution’s ability to put them in front of a jury keeps the core of their case intact.

According to the Associated Press, Monday’s ruling lets prosecutors keep the central evidence in the state murder case while still excluding some material from the earliest search of the backpack.

Judge Gregory Carro ruled the gun and notebook prosecutors say link Mangione to Thompson’s killing can be used at the murder trial, rejecting the defense argument that they were seized illegally before police obtained a search warrant.

The ruling is a clear prosecution win because it lets jurors see what prosecutors describe as the possible murder weapon and writings they say point to motive. At the same time, Carro suppressed several items from an initial backpack search at the McDonald’s, including a gun ammunition magazine, cellphone, passport, wallet, and computer chip.

The mixed decision still leaves the prosecution with the evidence it most wanted. Prosecutors say the alleged 3D-printed pistol matches the weapon used to kill Thompson.

ADVERTISEMENT

The notebook is also expected to be a key motive exhibit if prosecutors use it to argue that Mangione targeted a health insurance executive for ideological reasons. Mangione’s New York state murder trial is scheduled to begin September 8.

The state case is separate from the federal case, and Mangione has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

As Fox News reported before the ruling landed, the evidence fight centered on the backpack recovered after Mangione was recognized at a McDonald’s days after the shooting.

The contested evidence included the alleged murder weapon, a 3D-printed silencer, the fake ID prosecutors say was used at a Manhattan hostel, and journals that allegedly railed against the health insurance industry.

Thompson, 50, was walking to a business conference outside a Manhattan Hilton hotel when he was shot from behind on December 4, 2024. Prosecutors say the shooter fled the scene on a bicycle and that Mangione was later spotted in Altoona, Pennsylvania after customers and employees recognized him from a wanted poster and called 911.

The defense argued that police searched the backpack multiple times after Mangione’s arrest in the hours before a warrant was obtained. Defense lawyers said the search was improper because once Mangione had been arrested, he was no longer in control of the bag.

Prosecutors pushed back by arguing Altoona police acted reasonably under the circumstances. By the time Monday’s ruling arrived, the question was whether jurors would be allowed to see the evidence prosecutors say sits at the center of the case and timeline.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office had argued in court filings that the gun and notebook were independently recoverable and lawfully obtained regardless of the initial backpack search.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s reply filing laid out the prosecution’s argument in detail.

In a March 2 post-hearing memorandum, Manhattan prosecutors argued that Altoona officers had no advance warning that the suspect in a high-profile New York killing would appear in their jurisdiction. The filing says officers responded to a McDonald’s after a report that someone resembled the shooter, recognized Mangione from publicized images, and saw him produce a fake driver’s license.

Prosecutors said officers then arrested Mangione on Pennsylvania charges and processed the arrest under Pennsylvania law. During that process, officers conducted a limited backpack search at the McDonald’s and later performed an inventory search at the Altoona stationhouse, where prosecutors say they documented items including the alleged murder weapon, silencer, ammunition, and writings.

The DA’s office argued the motion to suppress should fail for several reasons: Pennsylvania law authorized the officers’ conduct, New York law also supported the search under exigency and inventory-search principles, and a later search warrant created an independent path to the backpack contents.

Prosecutors also argued that statements Mangione made to police and correctional officers should not be suppressed, saying some were pedigree statements, some were spontaneous, and others were tied to officer safety or were made to prison staff rather than extracted through improper interrogation.

For the defense, the partial suppression of some backpack items is a consolation prize at best.

The items that were suppressed are not the items that will convict or acquit. The gun and the notebook are.

Without those two exhibits, prosecutors would have been left building a circumstantial case around surveillance footage, travel records, and witness testimony.

With the gun and the notebook in evidence, the prosecution walks into trial with physical proof it says ties the defendant to the alleged weapon and writings that prosecutors say lay out why he allegedly did it.

The murder trial is scheduled to begin in September in Manhattan. Mangione also faces separate federal charges.

Judge Carro’s ruling does not decide the verdict.

It decides what evidence reaches the jury.

And what this jury will see is the prosecution’s strongest evidence, right where prosecutors wanted it: on the table in front of twelve New Yorkers who will decide how this case ends.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

What’s your view?