Luigi Mangione Is Facing Two Trials. Isn’t That Double Jeopardy?

Ever since Luigi Mangione was accused of killing a health care executive, questions have been raised about whether he was being subjected to double jeopardy, which bars someone from being tried twice for the same offense.

Mr. Mangione’s trial on state charges is scheduled for Sept. 8, and his trial on federal charges is scheduled for January. With jury selection in the state trial just weeks away, and news reports suggesting he was in talks to reach a federal plea deal, those questions about double jeopardy are resurfacing.

For prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, the concern is that any plea deal in the federal case before their trial begins would threaten their prosecution.

“One plus one is two,” Mr. Mangione declared in February as he was led out of a Manhattan courtroom in handcuffs. “Double jeopardy by any common-sense definition.”

Legal experts, though, say that double jeopardy protections are not always clear cut.

While the U.S. Constitution protects a defendant from double jeopardy, there are exceptions. According to the Supreme Court, federal and state governments can prosecute for the same conduct because they are considered independent of each other.

But New York provides stronger protections for Mr. Mangione. Under state law, double jeopardy comes into play when a prior prosecution for the same conduct ends in a conviction by guilty plea or a resolution at trial.

That’s why the timing of the two trials is crucial for the defense, said Ian Weinstein, a defense lawyer and professor at Fordham School of Law. If the state case goes to trial first, a subsequent federal trial is not barred by double jeopardy, he said.

Mr. Mangione’s federal case is scheduled to go to trial early next year.

Spokespeople for federal and state prosecutors and Mr. Mangione’s lawyers all declined to comment.

Last month, Joel Seidemann, a prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, wrote a letter to the state judge arguing that his office had “primary jurisdiction” over Mr. Mangione’s prosecution because it had charged him first.

In a hearing earlier this year, Mr. Seidemann said that Mr. Thompson’s mother had asked federal prosecutors to allow the state trial — the only of the two in which Mr. Mangione is charged with murder — to go first.

Mr. Mangione is accused of killing UnitedHealthcare’s chief executive, Brian Thompson, as Mr. Thompson walked into a hotel in Midtown Manhattan to prepare for an investor conference on the morning of Dec. 4, 2024. Mr. Mangione has pleaded not guilty to all charges in state and federal court.

In the days after Mr. Thompson’s killing, a nationwide manhunt for the gunman ensued. Five days later, Mr. Mangione was arrested in Altoona, Pa., and extradited to New York.

His arrest ignited further public interest — his every move was widely reported. When Mr. Mangione arrived in New York, he was led by a phalanx of federal officers in a perp walk, accompanied by then Mayor Eric Adams.

As Mr. Mangione awaited an arraignment in New York State Court, federal prosecutors announced their own set of charges.

One of Mr. Mangione’s lawyers, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, called the dual charges a “highly unusual situation.” She noted that when the district attorney’s office announced charges against Mr. Mangione, there was no sign he would also be charged by federal prosecutors.

Ms. Friedman Agnifilo has argued that the two cases are a sign that her client is a pawn between the two powerful prosecutors’ offices and that having to prepare for two trials simultaneously violates Mr. Mangione’s due process rights.

The federal charges were brought during the Biden administration, when the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York said the state prosecution would occur first. But shortly after, President Trump returned to office and his attorney general said she would seek the death penalty for Mr. Mangione, signaling her prosecutors were moving quickly to trial.

The judges overseeing the state case and the federal case have each said they are proceeding as if the case in their court were the only one. At the February hearing, Justice Carro said that federal prosecutors appeared to have “reneged on their agreement to allow the state that did most of the work in this case to go first.”

Justice Carro scheduled the state trial to begin before the federal one.

The two cases have narrowed over the past year, with Mr. Mangione’s lawyers winning the dismissal of the most serious charges. Mr. Mangione is still charged with several weapons charges and second-degree murder in state court. In federal court, he is not charged with murder but is accused of stalking, meaning prosecutors do not have to prove he killed Mr. Thompson, but that his actions led to the executive’s death.

Even if Mr. Mangione’s federal case is resolved first by guilty plea, state prosecutors may argue that their case — or portions of their case, depending on what charges Mr. Mangione pleads guilty to — can move forward.

In 2019, the Manhattan district attorney’s office, then led by Cyrus R. Vance Jr., tried to argue that double jeopardy laws did not prevent the state prosecution in another high-profile case.

When Mr. Trump said he would pardon his former campaign chairman, Paul J. Manafort, who was convicted in federal court for financial fraud, Mr. Vance’s office filed its own charges. Mr. Manafort’s lawyers appealed, arguing that he was protected under the state’s double jeopardy laws. The courts agreed, and the dismissal of Mr. Manafort’s case led to a law change in New York State.

In other cases, the court has sided with prosecutors.

In 1994, a man with ties to the Genovese crime family was shot dead in Brooklyn. Nearly 10 years later, two men connected to the case were found guilty in federal court of murder in aid of racketeering. Their convictions were overturned soon after.

But that did not stop state prosecutors in Brooklyn from indicting the men, said Paul Shechtman, a longtime New York defense lawyer who represented one of the men. New York’s courts ruled the men could be tried again.

“It is incredibly complicated,” Mr. Shechtman said of New York’s double jeopardy law.