FirstAlerts
Mass Casualty Incidents

Justice Dept. and Defense Jointly Request August 14 Conference in Mangione Federal Case

A joint letter to the judge says the court is available to hold the Friday conference. A Manhattan prosecutor said the People could tell the federal court if a plea there would defeat a just outcome in the state case.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 12, 2026, 1:52 p.m. ETWritten Aug 15, 2026, 5:13 p.m. ET

More on this incident

Justice Department prosecutors and defense attorneys in 's federal case jointly requested a court conference for Friday, August 14, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., and the court is available to hold it, according to a joint letter from the parties to the judge. The purpose of the requested conference is not stated in the material available for this report. Mangione is named as the defendant in the federal case by Justice Department prosecutors. Jury selection in the state case against him is set to begin Sept. 8, Fox News Digital reported. Manhattan assistant district attorney Joel Seidemann said prosecutors are "aware of public reporting regarding the possibility of a guilty plea in defendant's federal case." He added: "If a proposed federal guilty plea would operate to defeat a just outcome in the state prosecution, the People could advise the federal district court of that consequence, and the court should consider that fact in deciding whether to accept the plea, as well as any opposition by the victim's family to such a resolution." Seidemann's statement refers to "the victim's family," but no victim is identified in the material available, and it is not stated whether the family has taken a position on any federal plea. In the state case, Judge Gregory Carro said "individuals identifying themselves as supporters of the defendant engaged in inflammatory and hostile public statements outside the courthouse and announced their intention to attend jury selection to attempt to speak to prospective jurors." What steps, if any, the state court has ordered in response is not stated in the material available. The location associated with the case is recorded at level as a in , . What took place at that location is not described in the material available, and the charges in the federal and state cases, the identity of anyone harmed and the number of people involved have not been stated. No plea has been entered or accepted on the record in the material available, and no outcome of the requested Friday conference has been reported. This account rests on a limited record and may be updated.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 115 Aug 2026, 21:13current

    First published.

  2. Version 115 Aug 2026, 21:23current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.