New York, September 24, 2025 — In a scathing order issued today, U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett ruled that officials at the Department of Justice may have breached court rules by making public statements about Luigi Mangione’s case — statements that defense attorneys argue could prejudice potential jurors and threaten his right to a fair trial.
This order is in response to a letter that the defense filed yesterday.
Garnett cited Local Criminal Rule 23.1, which bars prosecutors and their agents from making extrajudicial comments that could affect the fairness of litigation. In her order she wrote:
“Multiple employees at the Department of Justice may have violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1.”
She also emphasized that two senior DOJ staff “appear to be in direct violation of this Rule and the Court’s April 25 order.”
In effect, the April 25 order was a preemptive judicial directive that the DOJ and its senior leadership be explicitly reminded that their communications (public statements, social media, etc.) concerning ongoing litigation must comply with Rule 23.1’s restrictions on prejudicial pretrial statements.
The judge ordered prosecutors to explain — via sworn declaration — by October 3 how the violations occurred and what steps would be taken to prevent further misconduct.
The inflammatory public statements in question included a Justice Department spokesperson’s repost of a video clip featuring President Trump, who said Mangione “shot someone in the back.”
The spokesperson added:
“@POTUS is absolutely right.”
Additionally, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt labeled Mangione a “left-wing assassin” in a public appearance — language the judge flagged as potentially prejudicial.
Garnett warned that future violations could lead to sanctions, including personal financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter.
She also ordered that DOJ leadership, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, be notified of the order and reminded of the restrictions.
The ruling arrives amid heightened scrutiny of Mangione’s case, already in the spotlight for its federal death penalty exposure and previous state decisions to drop terrorism enhancements. Mangione’s defense team is likely to leverage Garnett’s order in motions arguing that the government’s public narrative has tainted the proceeding.
Legal Context & Significance
Here’s why this is a big deal in the legal narrative:
Rule against prejudicial pretrial publicity
Most federal and local court systems enforce rules (e.g. Local Criminal Rule 23.1 in SDNY, and professional ethics rules) limiting what prosecutors, DOJ officials, or associated persons can say publicly about ongoing criminal cases—especially about guilt or motive—when trial is pending.
The point: to avoid tainting the jury pool or influencing public perception in ways that jeopardize the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
High stakes because death penalty is involved
When the government seeks the death penalty, the court’s threshold for protecting fairness is higher. Any hint of prosecutorial overreach, prejudicial statements, or government “spin” can become a tool for defense to argue structural unfairness or motion to dismiss or exclude parts of the case.
Potential remedies & defense leverage
The judge explicitly warned of sanctions: fines, contempt, or case-specific relief (e.g. excluding certain evidence or motions).
The defense can lean on this ruling to argue prejudicial government conduct, which might strengthen motions to (a) suppress evidence, (b) change venue (if prejudice is widespread), or (c) challenge the constitutionality of proceeding with the death penalty under tainted conditions.
DOJ and White House remarks as part of the factual record
Because Garnett singled out the reposts (by Chad Gilmartin of DOJ, Brian Nieves, and comments from the White House) and connected them to violations of Rule 23.1 and a prior April 25 order, the government’s public messaging is now part of the official dispute in the case—not mere background.
Related Articles
Terrorism Charges Dropped for Luigi Mangione
On September 16, 2025, a New York judge (Gregory Carro) dismissed two terrorism‐related murder charges against Luigi Mangione. Specifically, the charges struck were: ➤First-degree murder in furtherance of terrorism under state law. ➤Second-degree murder as a crime of...
Why Karen Read’s $1.4M Prosecution Expense Is Justified
When Norfolk County released invoices showing that Karen Read’s second trial cost taxpayers more than $1.4 million, critics pounced. But is that number really excessive? Not when you compare it with other high-profile, expert-heavy prosecutions. Here’s why the expense...
Brian Walshe Update – August 14 Hearing RE: Michael Proctor
The court, residing Judge Peter Krupp, took up defense access to former MSP Trooper Michael Proctor’s communications (the “Proctor files”) and the defense’s push tying those materials to discovery and dismissal issues. Joint Hearing Context The hearing was...