NEW YORK — In a recent court submission, attorneys representing Luigi Mangione contend that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s alleged “conflict of interest” serves as an additional justification for dismissing the death penalty in Mangione’s federal case. The filing suggests that this conflict further complicates the prosecution’s stance.

Facing federal charges of stalking and murdering UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson, Mangione has pleaded not guilty. His legal team is actively challenging the prosecutors’ intent to seek the death penalty upon conviction.

In an overnight submission to the court, the defense accused Bondi of not disclosing her previous association with the lobbying firm Ballard Partners. This firm reportedly counts UnitedHealth Group among its regular clients, and the defense claims Bondi personally benefited financially from this association.

The legal team argues that these connections should have precluded Bondi from influencing the decision to pursue the death penalty in this case.

“Upon assuming the role of Attorney General in 2025, Ms. Bondi’s first death penalty target was someone accused of murdering the CEO of a former client,” the defense stated. “Her financial ties to UHG present a conflict that should have led to her recusal from any case-related decisions.”

The defense maintains that the death penalty pursuit infringes on Mangione’s due process rights.

“The Attorney General’s past and present financial interest in Ballard Partners, which continues to lobby the government on behalf of UHG and UHC, implicates Mr. Mangione’s due process rights because the very person empowered to seek his death has a financial stake in the case she is prosecuting,” the filing said.

The United States Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York customarily declines to comment on ongoing cases and is expected to file a written response to the defense argument.

Mangione spent the last three weeks in a state courtroom fighting to exclude evidence from his forthcoming murder trial. The new defense filing in the federal case used some of the testimony from that suppression hearing to argue the evidence should also be excluded from Mangione’s federal case.

The defense argued the search of Mangione’s backpack was illegal because, at the time, he was handcuffed, separated from his backpack by several feet and was surrounded by Altoona police officers.

“There was no reasonable possibility that Mr. Mangione could have evaded the numerous officers surrounding him and opened his zippered backpack while rear cuffed. Accordingly, law enforcement’s search of Mr. Mangione’s backpack at the McDonald’s cannot be justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest,” the defense said.