Judge Gregory Caro’s Ruling on Luigi Mangione’s Case
Judge Gregory Caro is known for being quite the challenge if you’re a defense attorney in Manhattan. This isn’t just hearsay; he has a reputation for favoring what’s called a “process declaration,” as reported by Business Insider in December 2024. But his recent decision regarding Luigi Mangione might change some perceptions about him.
Caro dismissed two serious charges against Mangione:
- First-degree murder (promoting terrorist acts)
- Second-degree murder as a terrorist crime
Despite this, the prosecutor successfully demonstrated that there was sufficient evidence for other charges, such as second-degree (intentional) murder.
Mangione stands accused of murdering United Healthcare’s CEO, Brian Thompson, on December 4, 2024. At the crime scene, investigators found three shell casings with odd words written on them: “Depose,” “Delay,” and “den,” which might suggest something like a negation.
Kenklippenstein asserts he has a copy of Mangione’s manifesto, where, apparently, he refers to certain individuals as “parasites.” The document critiques the U.S.’s costly healthcare system, which, despite high expenses, ranks low in life expectancy. It conveys a sense of disillusionment, suggesting these individuals are exploiting the country for profit.
Expect all kinds of bizarre scientific research trying to explain extremism and violent leftist terrorism in ways that have nothing to do with deliberate rebellion. Luigi Mangione is just the latest example. pic.twitter.com/hllwida96b
– Raw Egg Nationalist (@babygravy9) September 17, 2025
Judge Caro argued that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to support claims that Mangione’s actions constituted a terrorist act under New York law. In his opinion, for an act to qualify as terrorism, it must involve attempts to intimidate or influence the government through coercion or violent means.
It’s interesting to note, the prosecution didn’t need to provide absolute proof of all elements of the law; rather, they just had to show that Mangione intended to intimidate. But, according to Caro, the evidence didn’t support this, and it seemed Mangione’s real aim was to highlight issues he saw in the healthcare sector.
This raises a question: Was Mangione trying to intimidate healthcare executives or simply express his frustrations? There’s some debate around his motivations.
This guy stopped at murder and planned murder. We’re losing control. https://t.co/ii5ikzghcb
– Tim Burchett (@timburchett) September 17, 2025
District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg presented a strong case, calling Mangione’s act a targeted murder designed to evoke shock and attention, as detailed by the New York Times.
Judge Caro referenced a 2011 case, People v. Morales, which helped define the term “civilians” in context with the Terrorist Act. Caro seemed skeptical that the legal definition of terrorism could encompass the murder, suggesting that Congress did not intend for corporate employees to be considered “civilians” as understood in the law.
Caro noted that even if one viewed an employee of a company as a “civilian,” there was no evidence that Mangione intended to intimidate or coerce those individuals specifically.
This raises a broader issue: Current laws might not adequately handle crimes driven by ideology. There’s a certain chilling effect from high-profile assassinations that can unsettle similar individuals in a given field. It’s a stark reminder of the potential consequences involved.
Judge Caro, who comes from a judicial lineage—his father was a New York Supreme Court Judge—has dealt with various notorious cases himself. His previous rulings show a pattern of taking a firm stance, but whether his ruling in this case will hold up in light of public criticism remains to be seen.
For instance, in the 2018 case of former nanny Yoselin Ortega, who was convicted of murdering two young children, Caro imposed the harshest available penalties. Similarly, he showed determination in the sentencing of Carlos Diaz, who faced charges after attempting to set his wife ablaze.
Judge Gregory Caro is often seen as a strict authority on fear-related matters; this decision indeed feels out of character. https://t.co/eg1mpmwp51
– Raw Egg Nationalist (@babygravy9) September 16, 2025
Interestingly, Caro has faced accusations in the past regarding his conduct, which raises questions about his judicial temperament. He once criticized a police officer in a misconduct trial for his behavior toward a vulnerable individual, asserting the responsibility that comes with being an officer of the law.
Overall, Caro’s decision in the Mangione case leaves much to ponder about the legal definitions surrounding terrorism and how they apply in today’s complex environment.
