The Precedent: When Judicial Scrutiny Dismantles Prosecution
A federal judge’s ruling strips the ultimate penalty from a high-profile case, exposing the fragility of aggressive legal strategy.
The Context
On 30 January 2026, U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett dismissed capital-eligible federal murder and firearms charges against Luigi Mangione. This ruling, based on a finding that the predicate stalking charge was “legally incompatible” with capital murder under Supreme Court precedent, removed the death penalty from the prosecution’s arsenal. The U.S. Attorney’s Office now has until 27 February 2026 to appeal. Jury selection is set for 8 September 2026, with opening statements on 13 October 2026. The strategic consequence is profound: a major Department of Justice prosecution has been critically weakened before trial.
The Risk
For a director, this is a masterclass in liability through procedural failure. The judge’s ruling did not dispute the alleged conduct but dismantled the legal architecture built upon it. In a New Zealand context, this mirrors the risk of a prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) failing because a duty holder’s governance system was found to be technically compliant but practically bankrupt. Directors may be personally liable under section 44 of the HSWA if they fail to exercise due diligence. A court may find that duty was breached not by malice, but by a board’s failure to understand the precise legal tests their operational controls must withstand. The Companies Act 1993 duties of care, diligence, and good faith are judged against this same standard of forensic legal scrutiny.
The Control
Direct oversight of legal risk is non-delegable. The board must mandate that internal and external counsel provide formal opinions on the legal sufficiency of critical compliance frameworks, not just their existence. Scrutinise the statutory definitions underpinning your major risks—’due diligence’, ‘effective control’, ‘reasonably practicable’. Stress-test them against worst-case judicial interpretation.
The Challenge
These are the critical questions you should be raising at the board table:
| Where in our HSWA due diligence framework is there a potential gap between our operational definition of ‘effective control’ and the strict legal interpretation a judge would apply in a section 44 prosecution? | |
| When did our board last receive and minute a formal legal opinion on the robustness of our key compliance policies against a challenge, rather than a simple assurance of their existence? | |
| Does our crisis management plan account for the scenario where our legal defence is technically correct but fails on a procedural or definitional technicality, shifting all liability to the board? |