NEW YORK – A critical hearing is set to resume on Thursday in the New York murder case against Luigi Mangione, coinciding with the anniversary of the alleged shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Prosecutors claim Mangione, 27, shot Thompson exactly one year ago.

Maintaining his innocence, Mangione has entered a not guilty plea to both state and federal charges. As the legal proceedings progress, his defense team is seeking to prevent the jury from considering what Mangione reportedly told law enforcement and from reviewing items such as a gun and notebook reportedly found in his possession.

These pieces of evidence are pivotal to the prosecution’s argument. Officials assert that the 9 mm handgun matches the weapon used in the fatal shooting. Furthermore, the notebook allegedly contains entries expressing Mangione’s grievances against health insurers and plans for targeting a CEO at an investor meeting. Additionally, it is claimed that Mangione provided Pennsylvania police with the same alias that the suspected shooter used while staying at a New York hostel in the days leading up to the incident.

Brian Thompson, aged 50, was tragically shot from behind as he made his way to an investor conference on December 4, 2024. Thompson had been the CEO of UnitedHealthcare since 2021, following a two-decade career with its parent company, UnitedHealth Group Inc.

While the hearing currently pertains solely to the state-level case, it is offering a detailed glimpse into the evidence and testimonies that will likely play a role in both the state and federal trials. This includes video footage, 911 call recordings, and other relevant documents.

Details about who will testify or what evidence will be presented on Thursday remain uncertain at this time.

Tuesday’s court session displayed police body-camera video of officers confronting Mangione at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and concluding — to their amazement — that he was the much-publicized suspect in Thompson’s killing five days earlier.

They interacted with Mangione for roughly 20 minutes before telling him he had the right to remain silent. The officers asked his name, whether he’d been in New York recently and other questions, including: “Why are you nervous?”

Officers tried to play it cool and buy time by intimating that they were simply responding to a loitering complaint and chatting about his steak sandwich. Still, they patted Mangione down and pushed his backpack away from him. About 15 minutes in, they warned him that he was being investigated and would be arrested if he repeated what they’d determined was a fake name.

After he gave his real one, he was read his rights, handcuffed, frisked again and ultimately arrested on a forgery charge related to his fake ID.

The video also provided glimpses of officers searching his backpack, a matter that will likely be explored further as the hearing goes on.

Mangione’s lawyers argue that his statements shouldn’t be allowed as trial evidence because officers started questioning him before reading his rights. The defense contends the backpack items should be excluded because police didn’t get a warrant before searching his bag.

Manhattan prosecutors haven’t yet detailed their arguments for allowing the disputed evidence. Federal prosecutors have maintained that police were justified in searching the backpack to ensure there was nothing dangerous inside and that Mangione’s statements to officers were voluntary and made before he was under arrest.

Many criminal cases see disputes over evidence and the complicated legal standards governing police searches and interactions with potential suspects.