A New York judge shut the press and public out of a hearing in Luigi Mangione’s state murder case this week, sealed the proceeding at the defense’s request, and then offered no explanation for the secrecy, while court staff hung up on a media lawyer who called to ask about it.
Mangione, the 28-year-old former Ivy Leaguer accused of gunning down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan Hilton hotel, was due in a New York City courtroom Wednesday for what turned out to be a virtual proceeding. Reporters learned only afterward that the hearing had been closed. Twenty-four hours later, details remained scarce, and the people responsible for transparency in the case were not returning calls.
The sequence raises a straightforward question that the court has so far refused to answer: On what legal basis was a hearing in one of the most closely watched criminal cases in the country sealed from public view, and why won’t anyone explain the reason?
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro held the sealed virtual hearing in Mangione’s murder case, the New York Post reported. When the proceeding concluded, Carro addressed reporters briefly on the record:
“Just so the record is clear, we did have a virtual proceeding in the people versus Luigi Mangione case. At the request of the defense, that proceeding is sealed at the moment and we have adjourned the case to June 16, and it’s a physical appearance, and you’re all invited to be here.”
That was it. No legal reasoning. No citation of statute or rule. No mention of what the hearing concerned. Just an announcement that it happened, that it was sealed, and that the next date is June 16.
Several media organizations, including the New York Post, had sent a letter to the court asking that press and public access be preserved. Carro did not address the letter in court. The defense requested the closure, but neither the judge nor defense counsel offered a public justification.
The Associated Press reported that a media lawyer who contacted Judge Carro’s staff seeking an explanation received a terse response before a clerk hung up on him. By Thursday, a court spokesperson had not responded to questions from Fox News Digital about the secrecy, either.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, the prosecution in the state case, also did not respond to requests for comment, Fox News reported.
So the judge won’t explain. The DA’s office won’t comment. And court staff literally hung up the phone.
Laura Italiano, a journalist covering the case, put the pattern bluntly: “We’re seeing serious transparency problems and the trial hasn’t even begun.”
Mangione faces separate state and federal charges stemming from the December 2024 shooting of Thompson, the 50-year-old UnitedHealthcare chief executive and father of two. Prosecutors allege Mangione stalked Thompson from Minnesota to New York and shot him outside a Manhattan Hilton hotel as Thompson headed to an investor conference. Surveillance video shows a masked figure striking Thompson multiple times in the back with gunfire.
Prosecutors have described the killing as a politically motivated assassination. Handwritten missives allegedly recovered from Mangione’s backpack contain sharp criticism of the health insurance industry, which prosecutors point to as a potential motive.
Mangione has pleaded not guilty to charges including murder, criminal possession of a weapon, and possession of a forged instrument. His defense challenged evidence obtained during his arrest in both the state and federal cases.
The two courts reached different conclusions on that evidence. Federal Judge Margaret Garnett ruled the challenged evidence admissible in the federal prosecution. But state Judge Gregory Carro found that some items from Mangione’s backpack must be suppressed in the New York case.
In the state case, Carro ruled that the gun, a 3D-printed silencer, and a red notebook, which prosecutors say contains writings relevant to motive, are admissible. Suppressed evidence includes Mangione’s phone, passport, loaded magazines, a wallet, and a computer chip.
That split creates an unusual dynamic. Federal prosecutors can use the full haul from the arrest. State prosecutors go to trial in September working with a narrower evidence set, one that still includes the weapon and the notebook, but not the phone or the digital material.
Mangione appeared at an evidence suppression hearing at Manhattan Supreme Court on May 18, 2026. He is due back in both state and federal courtrooms later this month. The state trial is scheduled to begin September 8. The federal trial is set for October 13, after the state case concludes.
Mangione has received more than $1.5 million in donations from supporters to fund his defense. That figure alone signals the extraordinary public interest in this case. Millions of Americans have strong opinions about it, some viewing Mangione as a folk hero, others as an accused killer who deserves the full weight of the justice system.
Either way, the public has a right to see how the case is handled. Court proceedings in criminal matters carry a strong presumption of openness under both New York law and the First Amendment. Sealing a hearing is supposed to be an extraordinary step, supported by specific findings on the record. What the public got here was a one-sentence announcement and a dial tone.
The defense may have had a legitimate reason to request closure, perhaps a sensitive witness issue, a plea discussion, or a matter touching on classified federal evidence. But the point of a public courtroom is that the public gets to know. When a judge seals a proceeding, the minimum expectation is a stated basis. Carro provided none.
The silence from Alvin Bragg’s office is worth noting separately. The Manhattan DA is prosecuting a case that his office has framed as a politically motivated assassination of a corporate executive. It is among the highest-profile murder prosecutions in the country. And when the court sealed a hearing with no explanation, the DA’s office had nothing to say.
That is not how a prosecutor’s office operates when it is confident in the transparency of its case. It is how an office operates when it would rather not draw attention to a process question it cannot control.
Whether Bragg’s team consented to the closure, opposed it, or took no position is unknown, because no one will talk about it.
Mangione’s next in-person court date is June 16. Carro told reporters they are “all invited to be here” for that one. The September 8 trial date looms after that, followed by the federal trial on October 13.
Between now and September, pretrial motions, witness disputes, and scheduling fights will shape what jurors eventually see. If the court continues to seal proceedings without explanation, and if the DA’s office continues to say nothing about it, the public will arrive at trial day with less understanding of the case than it deserves.
Criminal defendants have rights, and Mangione is entitled to every one of them. But the public has rights too. Open courtrooms are not a courtesy extended to reporters. They are a constitutional safeguard that protects everyone, including the accused, from proceedings conducted in the dark.
A man is dead. Another man faces life in prison. And the court’s answer to the most basic question, why was this hearing closed?, is a hung-up phone and silence. That is not how justice earns trust.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.