A Manhattan judge closed a virtual hearing in Luigi Mangione's state murder case to the press and public on Wednesday, offered no reason for doing so, and ignored a written request from news organizations seeking access to the proceeding.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro sealed the hearing at the defense team's request, then briefly addressed reporters only to confirm the session had taken place and to schedule the next court date. The move has drawn sharp criticism from journalists covering the case and raised pointed questions about transparency in one of the most closely watched criminal prosecutions in the country.
Carro held the sealed virtual proceeding in the case of People v. Luigi Mangione, then went on the record to acknowledge it. The New York Post reported that the judge stated plainly:
"Just so the record is clear, we did have a virtual proceeding in the people versus Luigi Mangione case."
Carro then told those present that the proceeding had been sealed and set the next appearance for June 16. His full statement, as reported by multiple outlets, was direct but thin on detail:
"At the request of the defense, that proceeding is sealed at the moment and we have adjourned the case to June 16, and it's a physical appearance, and you're all invited to be here."
The phrase "sealed at the moment" left open the possibility that the record could be unsealed later, but Carro gave no timeline, no legal basis, and no indication of what the hearing covered.
Several media organizations, including the New York Post, sent a letter to the court before the hearing asking that press and public access be preserved. Carro did not address the letter. He did not allow journalists to speak in court after the sealed session concluded, either.
Laura Italiano, a journalist covering the case, framed the problem bluntly. As Breitbart reported, Italiano said: "We're seeing serious transparency problems and the trial hasn't even begun."
That concern carries weight. The Mangione prosecution has generated intense public interest since charges were filed, and the pretrial phase has already produced contested rulings on evidence and scheduling. A judge recently cleared a gun and an alleged manifesto for use at trial, a decision that itself drew significant attention to how the court handles sensitive materials in this case.
Carro attributed the closure to a defense request, but neither the judge nor Mangione's attorneys have publicly explained the legal grounds. New York courts can seal proceedings under certain circumstances, including to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial, to shield sensitive investigative information, or to address matters involving sealed grand jury material. Without a stated reason, observers are left to speculate.
The defense team has been active on multiple fronts. Mangione's lawyers have fought to suppress key evidence, including items recovered during a search of his backpack in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The Manhattan District Attorney's office has defended the legality of that search as the two sides clash over what jurors will ultimately see.
Mangione also faces a parallel federal prosecution, and his defense has sought to push that trial to 2027, citing the burden of simultaneous cases. The dual-prosecution timeline adds another layer of complexity to pretrial maneuvering in both courts.
Sealed hearings are not uncommon in criminal cases, but they typically come with at least a brief on-the-record explanation. Courts routinely cite specific legal standards when closing proceedings, giving the public and the press a basis to challenge or accept the decision. Carro offered none of that.
The First Amendment and New York state law both create a strong presumption of public access to court proceedings. When judges deviate from that presumption, they are generally expected to articulate findings that justify closure. The absence of any stated rationale here is what makes the decision unusual, not the sealing itself.
Sealing disputes have surfaced in other high-profile murder cases as well. In the prosecution of the man accused of shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk's associate, the defense team moved to seal evidence and disqualify prosecutors ahead of a death penalty hearing. Courts handling cases that draw national attention face constant tension between defendants' rights and the public's right to observe the justice system at work.
The June 16 hearing will be open to the public and held in person. Carro's invitation for journalists to attend that session suggests the court does not intend to keep the entire pretrial process behind closed doors. But Wednesday's proceeding left no public record of what was discussed, what was decided, or why secrecy was necessary.
Fox News reported that the court refused to explain the secrecy, and no additional details about the sealed session have emerged from either side.
Mangione remains charged with murder in the shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. He has pleaded not guilty. The case has drawn extraordinary public attention, including from individuals far outside the legal system. Investigators in a separate case found that the suspect in the deadly Palisades fire had allegedly fixated on Mangione before setting the blaze, a reminder of how far the cultural ripple effects of this prosecution have spread.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys will presumably address the sealed hearing's substance at the June 16 appearance, or at least face questions about it. Whether the court unseals the record before then remains entirely unclear.
Public trust in the courts depends on the public being able to watch them work. When a judge closes a hearing and refuses to say why, the system asks citizens to extend a kind of blind faith that grows harder to sustain the longer the silence lasts.
If Carro had good reason to seal that courtroom, he owes the public at least the reason. That is not a favor to the press. It is the baseline cost of running a justice system in the open.
