How New York prosecutors used a terrorism law in the charges against Luigi Mangione

NEW YORK (AP) — New York prosecutors are using a 9/11-era anti-terrorism law in their case against the man charged with gunning down UnitedHealthcare's CEO outside a midtown Manhattan hotel.

Luigi Mangione was indicted on charges of murder as an act of terrorism, under a state law that allows for stiffer sentences when a killing is aimed at terrifying civilians or influencing government.

If it sounds like an unusual application of a terrorism law, it’s not the first time the statute has been applied to a case that wasn't about cross-border extremism or a plot to kill masses of people.

Mangione is jailed on other charges in Pennsylvania, where he is scheduled to appear at an extradition hearing Thursday that could clear the way for him to be brought to New York.

Here are some things to know about the anti-terrorism law and the case surrounding the death of Brian Thompson.

Mangione is charged with first-degree and second-degree murder counts that specifically refer to a New York law that addresses terrorism. Essentially an add-on to existing criminal statutes, it says that an underlying offense constitutes “a crime of terrorism” if it's done “with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.”

If a defendant is convicted, the “crime of terrorism” designation boosts the underlying offense into a more serious sentencing category. For example, an assault normally punishable by up to 25 years in prison would carry a potential life sentence.

Mangione would face a possible life sentence if convicted.

New York does not have the death penalty. The state's highest court threw out a capital punishment law in 2004.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg put it simply: “The intent was to sow terror." The Democratic prosecutor noted that the shooting unfolded early on a workday in a heavily trafficked business and tourist area, and he mentioned Mangione's writings, while declining to get more specific.

When arrested, the 26-year-old was carrying a handwritten letter that called health insurance companies “parasitic” and complained about corporate greed, according to a law enforcement bulletin obtained by The Associated Press.

New York Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch has said Mangione also was carrying a gun that matched shell casings at the crime scene. Investigators say ammunition found near Thompson’s body bore the words “delay,” “deny” and “depose,” mimicking a phrase some people use to decry insurers' practices.

Deputy Commissioner Rebecca Weiner said the reaction to Thompson's killing shows it fits within a law against violence designed to intimidate a civilian population.

The shooting prompted a wave of public criticism of the health insurance industry. Much of it is people sharing stories and frustration, but there also have been “wanted” posters targeting other health care honchos. Concerned companies have taken top executives' biographies offline, canceled in-person shareholder meetings and even told employees to work from home temporarily.

His New York attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, called the case “overcharged” in a statement Wednesday. The term is courthouse lingo for saying that prosecutors went too far.

State lawmakers passed it in 2001, six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, saying the state needed "legislation that is specifically designed to combat the evils of terrorism" and that wasn't just for federal courts. Then-state Sen. Michael Balboni, who was among the law's leading proponents, recalls pointing out that many cases could come via state and local law enforcement officers, who far outnumbered federal agents in New York.

Many other states passed similar laws around the same time, and Congress approved the Patriot Act.

There's no comprehensive count of cases where the anti-terrorism statute was used, because it can be layered onto many different types of charges, from weapons possession to murder.

The specific first-degree murder “in furtherance of an act of terrorism” charge against Mangione has been the top count in only three other cases statewide, according to the Division of Criminal Justice Services.

In New York City alone, over a half-dozen cases of various sorts have used the terror law, starting with the 2004 indictment of a Bronx gang member. He was accused of killing a 10-year-old girl and paralyzing a man at a christening party.

Manhattan prosecutors got convictions or guilty pleas in cases including plots to bomb synagogues or open fire on their congregants; a plan to build pipe bombs to try to undermine public support for the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; alleged efforts to recruit support for the Islamic State group and to provide money and knives to Syrian extremists; and a white supremacist who killed a Black man because of racial hatred.

Friedman Agnifilo was a top deputy to Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., when some of those cases were prosecuted.

Lawmakers set the parameters broadly. The law doesn't say that cases have to involve mass casualties or international extremism, Balboni said in a telephone interview on Wednesday.

“You’re trying to prevent individuals in this country who want to change government and use extremism and violence to that end,” whether what they want to change is foreign policy or health care industry regulation, said.

Courts haven't set out overarching rules for when a case qualifies. However, the state's top court said the Bronx gang member's case did not.

The high court overturned his conviction. Justices were skeptical that the shooting — allegedly targeting a rival gang member — was meant to intimidate the broader community. They also worried that the meaning of terrorism could be trivialized if "applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act.”

The man, who denied involvement in the shooting, was retried on manslaughter and other charges. He was convicted and sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Yes. The indictment includes another second-degree murder charge that doesn't have the terrorism allegation, as well as eight weapons-possession counts.

This booking photo released Monday, Dec. 9, 2024, by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections shows Luigi Mangione, a suspect in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections via AP)

Luigi Nicholas Mangione is escorted into Blair County Courthouse, Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2024, in Hollidaysburg, Pa. (AP Photo/Gary M. Baranec)

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea’s acting leader said Thursday he would veto a spate of contentious bills sponsored by the main opposition party, deepening political strife in the wake of parliament’s impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol.

The ruling and opposition parties have been bickering over how much authority Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the country's No. 2 official, has assumed since the opposition-controlled National Assembly last Saturday voted to suspend Yoon’s presidential powers over his short-lived Dec. 3 martial law. The Constitutional Court is to determine whether to formally dismiss the conservative Yoon as president or reinstate him.

Law enforcement authorities are also separately investigating whether Yoon's martial law enforcement amounted to rebellion. Yoon's defense minister, police chief and several other military commanders have already been arrested over the case. The main liberal opposition Democratic Party earlier considered impeaching Han as well for failing to stop Yoon's martial law declaration, but shelved the idea after he became acting leader.

Four of the six bills to be vetoed by Han were meant to introduce greater state financial assistance programs for the country’s agriculture and fisheries industries.

The most contentious bill is the Grain Management Act, which would require the government to buy surplus rice if the price drops too sharply to protect the country’s farming industry and promote its food sovereignty. Han said the bill would cause “immense” financial burdens on the government and eventually lead to further drops in rice prices.

Another controversial bill is the National Assembly Testimony Appraisal Act, which would give lawmakers more power to request people to attend parliament hearings and submit documents. Under the proposed legislation, individuals could no longer decline such requests by citing the protection of trade secrets or personal information.

The Democratic Party said the bill is necessary to determine the full details of Yoon’s martial law decree. But Han said the bill would likely infringe upon people’s privacy and that there are concerns among business leaders that key technology and company secrets could be leaked.

“I’m heavy-hearted because I’ve asked the National Assembly to discuss and act on the six bills again at a time when we desperately need cooperation among the government and the ruling and opposition parties,” Han said in televised comments at the start of a Cabinet Council meeting on Thursday. “But the government should make a responsible decision that prioritizes the principles of the Constitution and the future of our country.”

Democratic lawmaker and spokesperson Noh Jongmyun quickly criticized Han, warning him “not to cross a line,” adding, “We’ll immediately drag him down if he’s found to have collaborated with the rebellion.”

Observers earlier speculated the Democratic Party would reconsider impeaching Han if he vetoed the bills.

Another source of contention between the rival parties is whether Han has the right to appoint three vacant justices' seats at the Constitutional Court, as filling the vacancies could affect the court's decision on Yoon.

The martial law enactment lasted only six hours, but it caused huge political turmoil in South Korea and set off alarms from its neighbors and diplomatic partners. Yoon sent hundreds of troops to the National Assembly to block its vote on his decree. But many lawmakers managed to enter a parliament hall and unanimously voted it down, forcing Yoon's Cabinet to lift it.

Yoon has defended his decree as an act of governance, saying it was a warning to the Democratic Party, which he said has been using its parliamentary majority to obstruct his agenda.

Meeting with foreign media on Thursday, Seok Dong-hyun, a lawyer and spokesperson for Yoon’s emerging legal team, echoed Yoon’s assertion that his short-lived power grab didn’t amount to a rebellion. Seok said Yoon did not intend to paralyze the parliament and denied claims the president ordered the military to arrest his political opponents, including Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung.

“Regarding the charges of rebellion, he never even thought about it, so he cannot possibly agree to such an accusation,” Seok said.

“What kind of a rebellion is announced through a press conference broadcast to citizens, media and the whole world, as if he was saying, ‘I’m now about to commit a rebellion?'" Seok said. "When the National Assembly followed the constitutional procedure to lift martial law after two or three hours, we abided by that procedure.”

He said Yoon may appear in the Constitutional Court to directly defend his case. When asked whether Yoon would continue to ignore law enforcement’s requests to question him and search his office, Seok declined to give a specific answer, saying these matters would be handled by Yoon’s legal team, which he said is nearly assembled.

South Korea's Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who became the country's acting leader after parliament’s impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol, speaks during a meeting at the government complex in Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, Dec. 19, 2024. (Han sang-kyun/Yonhap via AP)