NEW YORK — Lawyers representing Luigi Mangione, an accused murderer, are asserting that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “conflict of interest” is a compelling reason to remove the death penalty from his federal case. This argument was presented in a recent court submission.

Mangione, who has entered a plea of not guilty, faces federal charges in the stalking and murder of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO, Brian Thompson. His legal team is challenging the government’s decision to pursue the death penalty if he is found guilty.

In a late-night filing, Mangione’s defense attorneys accused Bondi of not revealing her prior involvement with Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm that counts UnitedHealth Group among its regular clients. They allege she “personally benefited financially” from this relationship.

The defense argues that this situation represents a conflict of interest, which should have disqualified Bondi from influencing the decision to seek capital punishment.

“After Ms. Bondi transitioned from Ballard Partners to her role as Attorney General in 2025, her first action was to authorize the death penalty for the individual charged with killing the CEO of her previous client,” the defense claimed. “Her financial ties to UHG should have prompted her to step aside from any decision-making in this case.”

The defense argued the pursuit of the death penalty violates 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.