Mangione

HOLLIDAYSBURG — The solicitor for the City of Altoona is objecting to the release of audio and video recordings linked to the December arrest of murder suspect Luigi Mangione in Altoona by claiming that in light of an ongoing police investigation, Mangione’s right to a fair trial outweighs public interest in those recordings.

Solicitor Michael Wagner’s response was offered to address a petition filed by a Lancaster area attorney who, on behalf of a Nebraska podcaster, maintains that public disclosure of the recordings far outweighs any reason for keeping them secret.

“Disclosing 911 recordings would further aid the public’s interest in completing a timeline of events surrounding the arrest of Mr. Mangione on Dec. 9, 2024,” attorney J. Chadwick Schnee of Lititz stated in an appeal petition filed in April on behalf of EWU Media LLC. “Additionally, publicly disclosing 911 recordings would further aid the public’s interest in determining the sufficiency of law enforcement’s response following the 911 calls.”

In June, President Judge Wade A. Kagarise convened a hearing and recognized the district attorney’s office’s interest in the case, then added the DA’s office as a respondent.

Kagarise also, during that hearing, directed Wagner and Assistant District Attorney Julia Wilt to answer EWU’s petition and to include an outline of relevant audio and video recordings their offices hold or have access to.

Wagner, whose response was filed in the county prothonotary office without an outline of audio/video recordings, acknowledged the court’s authority to evaluate EWU’s request and asked that it be denied.

In seeking the recordings, Schnee pointed out that the city has provided no evidence to show that the requested recordings qualify as an exemption under the state’s Right-to-Know Law.

“The public disclosure of 911 recordings fosters the very public interest set forth in the Right to Know Law itself by enabling the public to prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public officials and making public officials accountable for their actions in connection with the events of Dec. 9, 2024,” Schnee wrote.

In response to that position, Wagner wrote: “To the extent that an answer is required, the petition’s allegation is specifically denied. Mr. Mangione’s right to a fair trial outweighs the public interest with response to the release of protected information in light of an ongoing criminal investigation.”

Where did this appeal develop?

Schnee’s appeal to the county court developed from a Jan. 6 ruling by the state Office of Open Records which said it wasn’t in a position to determine whether public interest in the 911 recordings outweighs the interest in keeping the recordings secret.

Schnee disagreed with the OOR’s conclusion and said his review of the law and related court rulings indicates that either a court or an agency, like the OOR, can decide if “the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest in nondisclosure.”

After the June hearing, Schnee explained that his pursuit is based on Act 22 of 2017 which established specific procedures for seeking audio and video recordings held by law enforcement agencies.

One remedy, the attorney proposes in his petition, is for Kagarise to vacate the relevant portion of the OOR’s ruling and order the release of the recordings.

The state OOR — on its website — also recognizes that based on Act 22 of 2017, nothing prevents a law enforcement agency or a prosecuting attorney with jurisdiction from choosing to release an audio or video recording, with or without a written request.

Information previously provided

When Schnee argued his position before the state OOR, the city pointed out that Mangione’s mugshot and the criminal complaint with details about his charges were available to the public through online resources.

The city also argued that it didn’t have possession of the 911 recording of the McDonald’s employee advising that a customer resembled the man whose picture was circulated in the shooting death of United HealthCare CEO Brian Thompson. Instead, the city claimed that because the county runs the 911 Center which recorded the call, the recording was in the county’s possession.

Schnee’s request also sought video recordings by the body camera worn by responding Altoona police officers, which the city has also declined to provide.

But in May, Mangione’s defense attorneys in New York — where he is being held on federal and state charges in Thompson’s killing — offered glimpses of Altoona officers’ body camera recordings in the form of several photographs within a 57-page document filed in court. The photos were included to support their challenges to the legality of Mangione’s arrest.

In that same document, defense attorneys also indicated that the recorded police video, as provided, excluded 20 seconds of when Mangione was being questioned by an officer who placed his hand over his body camera. The defense attorneys also said the recordings failed to account for 11 minutes when Mangione’s backpack was transferred from the Plank Road McDonald’s to the police station.

Back in Blair County

Meanwhile, Mangione’s pending criminal case in Blair County — where Altoona police charged him with felony counts of forgery and firearms not to be carried without a license and misdemeanor counts of possessing an instrument of crime, tampering with records and false identification to law enforcement officers — are on hold.

In June, District Attorney Pete Weeks presented Judge Jackie Bernard with a letter on behalf of U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, indicating that while Mangione’s federal criminal charges are pending, Mangione won’t be transported to Pennsylvania to answer Blair County’s pending charges. However, Clayton’s office indicated that Mangione could be made available to participate in court proceedings by video conferencing or phone.

Altoona defense attorney Thomas M. Dickey, who represents Mangione on his Blair County charges, has advised Bernard that Clayton’s letter isn’t sufficient reason to establish that Mangione cannot be brought to Pennsylvania to answer his charges here.

Based on that position, Dickey filed a motion in late June asking Bernard to schedule a hearing on Mangione’s pretrial motions and require Mangione’s in-person participation.

Bernard, in an order referencing Clayton’s letter, advised Dickey to file a memorandum outlining the legal authority “for the physical production of the defendant for pretrial motions.”

The judge has also directed Weeks’ office to keep her updated, every 60 days, on the status of Mangione’s availability and whether his appearance can be secured with the cooperation of federal authorities.

When Mangione was transported in December from Blair County to New York, he was escorted by armed guards as part of enhanced security measures that included use of a police helicopter. At that time, the enhancements were deemed to be justified in the light of the allegations, public attention and threats.