Transcript of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and NYPD officials speak after the Luigi Mangione indictment

So the the the original missing report took place back in November 18th in San Francisco. The sergeant that was involved in that case reached out to the San Francisco field office and said, hey. Basically, I'm working on a missing case. I saw the photograph that was distributed by the NYPD. There's there bears a resemblance.

That tip was forwarded to us close to 45 hours after the incident took place. It re it showed up to a a TFO, which is a task force officer. We have NYPD officers embedded with the FBI. They received that tip. It was 1 of 4 tips that they had received that day, and they were vetting it.

Part of that vetting process was that they reached out to Mangione's mother in San Francisco very late on 7th. They had a conversation where she didn't indicate that it was her son in the photograph, but she said it might be something that she could see him doing. So that information was was going to be passed along to the detectives the next morning, but, fortunately, we apprehended it before that we could act on that.

Adam? The commissioner has talked about how the defendant's been lionized and celebrated. I'm wondering how concerned you are about a potential jury, knowing that someone on that jury would be someone that would lionize and celebrate it.

Well, I wanna echo, the commissioner's words and concerns, which I think were were put forth beautifully. I mean, we we we see a lot in these jobs. I meet with, the families of homicide victims, and I just can't wrap my head around the notion that, someone is celebrating this. To your specific question, you know, we're we're at the beginning of a litigation now with our charge. We have a phenomenal, trial team in place, led by ADA, Joel Seidman, who has, you know, been in this office for more than 40 years and handled, some very challenging matters.

We have a wide year process in place. I have faith in our jury system to select 12 people who can be fair and impartial, but we'll we'll we'll we'll move forward and that's something, well down the road, but we'll be ready when that time comes. Sure. And I and my point I mean, the statue talks about, attempts to influence or coerce, civilian population. The statute talks about, intending to influence a policy of government, and it talks about, seeking to, you know, put forth things sort of in similar to that, by murder.

So, the statute plain language of the statute is clear. Obviously, we we you know, we've charged it. The grand jury has voted on it, and we intend to go forward and and prove it. But I I think it does help to to take a step back, you know, and think about the the proof in the case, some of the writings. Not gonna get into too much of that, but and the actual reaction.

You know, in the middle of Midtown, the beginning of a busy day, tourists, commuters, business people, the intent, was to, sow terror. I'm not gonna talk about communications with the family other than to say that we have a robust survivor services staff here, that is second to none. But I I would not talk about communications with any family. I don't think it'd be appropriate. But I appreciate your concern.

Well, is it

just because of you, like you're saying, there's so much focus on the suspect? Yeah. You know, it's quite difficult. I

I I I echo the what the commissioner said, and I the the sentiment of your question, my heart goes out to it. And this is a significant piece of what we do here, is we center the trauma of survivors and victims and their families. Significant piece of what I do is sit across the table and and and look people in the eye and, when appropriate, if they want to offer a hug. And we have, dedicated advocates and counselors and, great staff that focuses on that. So I I agree completely with you.

And I and I wish I wish that that's where the public's focus was exclusively. That's where it should be. That's where it is here in addition to, obviously, the facts and the law and the case. But because of respect for where your question is coming from, I I'm not gonna get into communications.

Yes. Absolutely. And and we've seen a real increase, sustained increase since December 4th in concern, not just from CEOs, but from corporations broadly. And so going back to the DA's point, you know, the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, which is, of course, at the root of our state terrorism statute, is very much borne out in this reaction and for good reason. We've had a torrent of online threats.

We've had real world activity that the police commissioner flagged, which is abhorrent, and it causes concern. So we have done a lot to work with corporate security partners with whom we partner on a daily basis in this city, at the city level, at the state level, trying to make sure that everybody has the best practices that they need, that they know where to flag not just general ambient concerns, but specific threats that they might be receiving, that a few weeks ago, they might have written off as just noise in the online environment, that they now take seriously. So these are ongoing conversations, that we have, and thanks to all of the work that we do together every day, we're quite confident that concerns and threats are gonna be appropriately directed our way.

So I'll I'll address the the the the first piece. The the first degree murder statute, has a number of subsections. They're sort of clearly delineated, and they are reserved for, you know, the most, abhorrent conduct, killing a police officer, serial killing. And the terrorism is 1 subsection of that. And so, I would say, fortunately, that's not happening a lot.

Taking a step back, I don't I can't think of another office that is, more equipped to handle a terrorism charge. We have, a great terrorism unit. We were at the forefront of getting the statute passed. Within the last 2 years, we've tried, 2 very significant, terrorism cases, 1 involving, an English speaking operative based in Jamaica, and another, involving someone who was here, and funding overseas terrorism, by cryptocurrency. So, we have the expertise, and as I mentioned, the, the the expertise on this team, and so we're prepared to go forward.

And other statements?

Yeah. I'm I'm not gonna go beyond what's what's in the filing.

Alright. Last question. Laura,

So as a matter of practice, I don't talk about sentencing outside of court for as a first matter and certainly not, at the initial stages of a matter. But, I think you can tell the seriousness with which we take this matter, by the way in which it's charged. The murder in the second degree actually has a mandatory life without a parole, sentence. No discretion for the judge, at all. So that's the maximum there.

But I'm not gonna go beyond that. We will, first, get the defendant to New York. We will have him arraigned. We will be before our judge. We will engage in pretrial litigation.

If there's a trial, we're ably equipped to do that, and then, we will proceed to sentencing, at which point we'll make our arguments in court. Thank you all so much.

I guess so. No.

Just taking your book.