In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down the move nobody saw coming in the Luigi Mangione case: there will be no federal trial. Instead of the two trials everyone was waiting for, on August 14 Mangione pleaded guilty in federal court to the stalking-resulting-in-death charges — an open plea to the court, with no plea deal — and his lawyers immediately used that conviction to attack the New York murder case as double jeopardy.

Monica and Brandon walk through how it happened: the plea deal report that prosecutors shut down, what an open plea actually is and how federal plea practice differs from state court, and the carefully scripted allocution — the 3D-printed gun and suppressor, posing as an investor managing more than $50 billion to find UnitedHealthcare's investor conference, admitting he traveled to New York intending to shoot Brian Thompson, and tying his motive to his own experience with the healthcare system. Then why all that detail was the point: double jeopardy requires the same act, and the allocution erased any ambiguity. It's a calculated risk, because if the motion fails, his own words get used against him. The federal guidelines land between 24 and 30 years, the government is seeking life, and sentencing is set for December.

From a criminal defense perspective, they dig into the statute doing the work: New York's criminal procedure law bars separate prosecutions for the same act or criminal transaction — broader than the dual sovereignty rule they covered in Part 1, and triggered only by a conviction, which is exactly what the guilty plea created. They debate the exception that will decide the motion — whether stalking and murder are statutes designed to prevent "very different kinds of harm or evil" — through their own Florida stalking and injunction practice, cover the defense's due process argument that the prosecutions were sequenced to maximize punishment, and lay out the stakes: a potentially consecutive 25-to-life state sentence versus a single federal sentence and getting out in his 50s. Plus the supporters who were already a jury problem, and the hosts' split verdict: Monica is rooting for him to see daylight, while Brandon, the former prosecutor, can't get past the family who never gets their dad back.

Topics covered in this episode include: the Luigi Mangione guilty plea, open pleas, federal versus state plea practice, the allocution, the federal stalking resulting in death charges, New York's double jeopardy statute and dual sovereignty, the motion to dismiss the New York murder case, the "very different kinds of harm or evil" exception, stalking law and injunctions in Florida, the due process sequencing argument, federal sentencing guidelines, the December sentencing, the Pennsylvania case still pending, the Mangione supporters and the jury problem, and the smartest strategic plea they've covered.

Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.
🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.
📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast 📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod 🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation!

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down where the Luigi Mangione case actually stands as his murder trials approach — separating what the internet believes from what is really happening in court.
Mangione is charged in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, gunned down on a Manhattan sidewalk in one of the most polarizing prosecutions in America. He faces state murder and weapons charges in New York plus federal interstate stalking counts — and the landscape has shifted: the death penalty is off the table after the judge dismissed the death-eligible counts and the government declined to appeal, and the once-headline terrorism charge is gone too. Monica and Brandon explain dual sovereignty, why being prosecuted by the feds and the state for the same act is not double jeopardy, and which case carries the bigger risk now.
From a criminal defense perspective, they walk through the suppression rulings that reshaped the case: the backpack contents and key statements thrown out because of how eight officers surrounded him in a McDonald's — and the ghost gun, suppressor, and notebook the government calls a manifesto that stayed in. They cover when Miranda actually kicks in, the $1.5 million donated defense fund and its jury-image problem, the Free Luigi movement, and the very real talk of jury nullification when a defendant has a fan base.
Topics covered in this episode include: the Luigi Mangione case update, the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, state murder charges and federal interstate stalking charges, why the death penalty is off the table, dual sovereignty and double jeopardy explained, the McDonald's arrest and when Miranda rights kick in, suppressed evidence versus the ghost gun and manifesto, the Free Luigi movement and the donated defense fund, jury selection and jury nullification, and the criminal defense perspective on fighting two prosecutions at once.
Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.
🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.
📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast 📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod 🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation!

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down Part 2 of the Lindsay Clancy trial: the defense case in chief, the commonwealth's rebuttal experts, the closing arguments, and the deadlocked jury — recorded live on verdict watch, with a jury note landing just as the episode wrapped.
The defense built its case on experts. Dr. Paul Zeisel, the clinical and forensic psychologist who saw Lindsay within days of the killings and became her treating psychologist, delivered the money quote: she was unable to conform her behavior to the requirements of the law and had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act. Dr. Phillip Resnick — the country's leading expert on filicide and malingering — testified by Zoom that she was frankly psychotic at the time of the killings, like a puppet with someone else pulling the strings, and that standardized malingering testing showed she was minimizing her symptoms, not exaggerating them. A psychopharmacologist walked through the 13 medications and the missed signs of postpartum psychosis, a forensic pathologist legitimized the suicide attempt the state called performative and compressed the timeline, and the lay witnesses — her mother, her sister, and her former mother-in-law, who testified she was an excellent mother who was clearly sick — put a family's grief on the defense side of the courtroom. Plus the hospital chaplain who heard about the voices before any defense doctor ever did.
Monica and Brandon explain the Massachusetts criminal responsibility standard — cognitive or volitional, and the commonwealth's burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, a minority rule nationally — then dig into the state's rebuttal experts, who contradicted each other's diagnoses, and the mic-drop moment when the defense read the prosecution's own opening statement to the state's final expert, who admitted it really minimizes what she was going through. From a criminal defense perspective, they break down both closings — the quarters on the prosecution's table, the family photographs, the "broken toys" line the state left the jury with — the three verdict slips and the lesser included offenses, and the Tuey-Rodriguez "dynamite" charge that reminds a deadlocked jury the burden sits entirely on the commonwealth. Then they each give their own verdict — and they don't match.
Topics covered in this episode include: the Lindsay Clancy trial verdict watch, the defense case in chief, not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the filicide and malingering experts, altruistic filicide, the MMPI malingering test, the 13 medications and the missed diagnoses, the compressed timeline, the ex-mother-in-law and chaplain testimony, the commonwealth's conflicting rebuttal experts, the mistrial motion over religious testimony, closing argument strategy and theatrics, the verdict slips and lesser included offenses, the Tuey-Rodriguez dynamite charge versus Florida's Allen charge, hung juries and what happens after a mistrial, and the criminal defense perspective on whether the state met its burden.
This is a heavy episode about mental illness, postpartum psychosis, and suicide. If you or someone you love is struggling, call or text 988, the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.
🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.
📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast 📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod 🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation!