Luigi Mangione returned to court for his sixth day of hearings as prosecutors sought to determine what evidence will be used against him at trial. The defense argued that releasing CCTV footage of the killing and aftermath was prejudicial, saying it aimed to "litigate their case in the court of public opinion" and distract from the botched arrest.
Judge Gregory Carro agreed the video wasn't relevant to the suppression hearing but said, "We deal with all this press this case has gotten: in jury selection." The focus remained on supervisory police officers present at Mangione's arrest at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where customers thought he matched the suspect due to his distinctive eyebrows.
Lt. William Hanelly testified that he called 911 as he arrived at the scene "so we could get the ball rolling," acting off a tip from a local business. He told dispatchers they might have the shooter and confirmed the individual at the McDonald's matches the photos released by the department.
Mangione listened as the previously unheard phone call was played in court, including Hanelly asking one of his subordinates if he had pat him down. Hanelly testified that there was reasonable suspicion Mangione was involved in a crime of violence and could be armed and dangerous.
The case centers on whether officers followed procedure during Mangione's arrest, particularly regarding the search of his backpack. Defense attorneys argue the lack of a warrant made the search illegal and claim they were too late reading Mangione his Miranda rights. They also say he should not have been peppered with questions after indicating silence.
The officers testify that they lawfully searched Mangione's backpack following an arrest for showing a fake ID, claiming concern about potential harm or explosives. They maintain their questioning was appropriate under the circumstances.
Prosecutors are expected to rest next week, and Judge Carro will issue a written decision in January regarding the evidence.
Judge Gregory Carro agreed the video wasn't relevant to the suppression hearing but said, "We deal with all this press this case has gotten: in jury selection." The focus remained on supervisory police officers present at Mangione's arrest at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where customers thought he matched the suspect due to his distinctive eyebrows.
Lt. William Hanelly testified that he called 911 as he arrived at the scene "so we could get the ball rolling," acting off a tip from a local business. He told dispatchers they might have the shooter and confirmed the individual at the McDonald's matches the photos released by the department.
Mangione listened as the previously unheard phone call was played in court, including Hanelly asking one of his subordinates if he had pat him down. Hanelly testified that there was reasonable suspicion Mangione was involved in a crime of violence and could be armed and dangerous.
The case centers on whether officers followed procedure during Mangione's arrest, particularly regarding the search of his backpack. Defense attorneys argue the lack of a warrant made the search illegal and claim they were too late reading Mangione his Miranda rights. They also say he should not have been peppered with questions after indicating silence.
The officers testify that they lawfully searched Mangione's backpack following an arrest for showing a fake ID, claiming concern about potential harm or explosives. They maintain their questioning was appropriate under the circumstances.
Prosecutors are expected to rest next week, and Judge Carro will issue a written decision in January regarding the evidence.
. i mean, they searched his backpack without a warrant & didn't even get to read him his miranda rights till later... that doesn't sound right at all 
. and now the prosecution is gonna try to convince everyone that it's all good cuz of that phone call where the officer asked another guy if he'd patted him down? 
i'm not seein' how that proves they followed procedure lol...
seems like they're focusing on the wrong person - Mangione's just a bystander who got caught up in a bad situation. 
what's really going on here?
. It's like, what if they'd picked the wrong guy entirely? 
And the way Lt. Hanelly testified about "reasonable suspicion"... I'm not sure how reliable that is 
. The defense is worried about the police procedure too, and I can see why – it does seem a bit sketchy 
. Let's hope Judge Carro makes a fair decision next January 
.
. And what's with the lack of a warrant? That's a pretty big deal, right? It sounds like the defense is saying they were just trying to protect themselves from getting sued, but it also raises questions about whether they did everything by the book 
.
It's pretty wild to think about how people were identifying someone based on their eyebrows alone 
.
, i mean who expects to be peppered with questions after just showing a fake ID? 
Mangione's eyebrows really did make him look like the suspect tho 
i think it's all about whether officers followed procedure during mangione's arrest, but like, what does that even mean? 
can't wait to see how it all plays out next week 