[UPDATE 8:15 PM: Apparently Mangione’s attorneys are withdrawing the plea, although it’s not at all clear why. So, as Emily Litella would say, “Never mind.”]

It’s not as though Mangione’s lawyers have a lot of options. There’s little doubt that he murdered United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in cold blood, shooting him in the back. What can they plead? That Thompson deserved it, which is the basic argument of the left and of Mangione’s fangirls (who seem to be themselves suffering from “emotional disturbance,” but they’re not on trial)? Certainly not.

“Extreme emotional disturbance” wouldn’t get Mangione off entirely, nor would it get him a stint in a mental hospital. It would, however, reduce his sentence, if the jury found it was present:

Luigi Mangione plans to assert a psychiatric defense at his state murder trial, claiming he was suffering from extreme emotional disturbance when he gunned down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, a judge said Wednesday. It wouldn’t absolve him of the Dec. 4, 2024, killing, but could free him from prison sooner.

If a jury accepts that defense, the panel would convict Mangione of manslaughter and he would face up to 25 years in prison. Alternatively, the jury could reject the extreme emotional disturbance defense and convict him of murder, which carries a potential life sentence. That defense isn’t available in his federal case.

His state case is due to begin September 8 and his federal case October 13. Each state has its own murder laws, and Mangione is being tried in New York. “Extreme emotional distress” as a defense is not common in states in the US; this site claims it’s only available in NY (how convenient for Mangione), although I’ve read it also exists in Arkansas. Basically, it’s somewhat similar to the old “heat of passion” defense although it’s not exactly the same, and it reduces the crime to manslaughter.

In New York:

To establish the defense of Extreme Emotional Disturbance, the defense must prove:

(1) The defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the killing, and

(2) There was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance, determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as they believed them to be.

Unlike the insanity defense, EED does not require proof of mental illness, though psychiatric evidence is often used to support the claim. It is a partial defense focused on emotional volatility and human response to extreme stress, provocation, or trauma.

I sincerely hope it requires more than the statement “I’m a hothead, and I got upset and killed him.” It is probably requirement #2, the “reasonable explanation or excuse” part, that raises the bar and makes it more difficult to prove than that. Traditionally, I believe it functions when there is major and personal trauma that directly involves the murderer and the victim, not some sort of generalized trauma like being upset about a divorce and then killing some random person on the street. Nor does it involve something like losing your job – which is upsetting but which most people seem to survive without killing anyone – and murdering your boss.

Here are examples of how it works in New York:

The courts look for cases where the defendent:

– Was provoked by a triggering event that created overwhelming emotional stress
– Reacted immediately or after a short period during which the emotional disturbance remained active
– Had no reasonable opportunity to regain self-control before committing the act
– Was under the influence of emotional trauma that a reasonable person in their situation might have experienced similarly

Examples include:

– A person killing a spouse after discovering infidelity in a shocking and unexpected way
– A parent reacting violently after prolonged abuse or threats against their child
– A victim of long-term domestic violence lashing out in a moment of uncontrollable fear or despair

You can see what I mean about the direct connection between the killer and victim.

I suppose everything depends on the jury composition, and it’s possible – because this is New York – that the jury will at least be deadlocked or hung. But I don’t think all the jurors would accept a defense like this for Mangione, even in New York. The crime was heinous, there was a relative long period of planning, and the previous connection between Mangione and Thompson was basically nil as far as we know.

What on earth will the defense claim to be the cause of his emotional disturbance? I’ve read Mangione had some back pain and a spinal fusion surgery – that apparently was successful, and that his insurance company was not United Healthcare. So, what would the distress have been? That he was upset by a news story about the health insurance business? It seems preposterous to me, but perhaps his lawyers will get creative. I don’t think they’ll win, but you never know with juries and New York is a funny place.

The federal charges don’t allow that sort of defense, and so I think Mangione will be going to prison for a long long time one way or the other.