>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Judge Garnett initially appeared ready to proceed without further hearings.
Then came Monday.
After reviewing arguments made late last week, the judge abruptly ordered prosecutors to prove that Altoona police followed lawful inventory procedures when they seized and searched Mangione’s personal property.
Her order cited “both the arguments made by counsel” and “the seriousness of the charges the Defendant is facing.”
That language was a clear signal that something about the government’s explanation did not sit right.
The backpack is central to the case.
Prosecutors claim it contained a firearm, ammunition, fake identification documents, and handwritten notes outlining Mangione’s grievances against the health insurance industry.
Mangione is accused of stalking and murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel.
Federal prosecutors are seeking execution.
If the backpack evidence is suppressed, the government’s case suffers a catastrophic blow.
Police procedure now under the microscope
Judge Garnett made clear she does not need testimony from one of the many officers involved in the arrest.
That detail raised eyebrows among legal observers.
The judge wants to know whether Altoona police actually have standardized inventory policies or whether officers improvised when they searched the bag.
Several Altoona officers already testified during a lengthy suppression hearing in state court.
They claimed they searched the backpack for bombs, weapons, and threats to public safety.
Defense attorneys challenged that narrative aggressively.
They noted no one evacuated the restaurant and no bomb squad was called.
Those inconsistencies now matter.
If officers did not follow department policy, or if no policy existed at all, prosecutors could lose the ability to rely on a key legal safeguard.
Inevitable discovery not guaranteed
Mangione’s attorneys argue the backpack search violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on warrantless searches.
Prosecutors counter with the inevitable discovery doctrine.
Under that rule, evidence can still be admitted if police would have inevitably found it through lawful means such as a routine inventory during booking.
On paper, that argument looks strong.
When someone is arrested on forgery charges and transferred across state lines, police inventory personal belongings as standard practice.
The question is whether Altoona police can prove that would have happened regardless of the initial search.
Legal experts say that is where cases often collapse.
Judges can reject inevitable discovery if officers acted in bad faith or ignored established procedures.
New York defense attorneys told Rolling Stone they saw trouble coming immediately.
“I hope they got a search warrant,” one former Manhattan prosecutor said after learning how the evidence was recovered.
That warning now looks prophetic.
Timeline pressures mount
Judge Garnett ordered the hearing to take place within the next two weeks.
Her willingness to slow the case signals serious concern about constitutional issues despite the gravity of the allegations.
Mangione faces nine counts in state court including second degree murder and four federal charges including capital murder.
If federal prosecutors abandon the death penalty, trial could begin as early as October.
If they continue pursuing execution, jury selection would not begin until September with opening statements pushed into late 2027.
The state case moves first.
State Judge Gregory Carro is not expected to rule on the backpack issue until May.
Mangione has pleaded not guilty in both courts.
Defense blasts early prosecution tactics
Defense attorneys argue law enforcement and federal officials poisoned the jury pool before Mangione was even indicted.
They describe his arrest as a media spectacle designed to justify capital punishment.
According to the defense, police turned the arrest into a “scene out of a Marvel movie.”
They also point to public comments from Attorney General Pam Bondi announcing intent to seek execution before formal charges were filed.
Now, that entire prosecution may hinge on whether local police followed basic inventory rules.
A single backpack.
A single policy.
And a judge who decided she was not ready to take the government’s word for it.
For federal prosecutors, what once looked like a slam dunk just became a high risk constitutional battle with everything on the line.
