Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Luigi Mangione Will Argue Psychiatric Defense in State Murder Trial; Interview with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD): U.S. Releases Official 14-Point Agreement with Iran; U.S. House Staff Visits Ghislaine Maxwell's Prison. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired June 17, 2026 - 15:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Three months before his state murder trial, we're now learning that accused killer Luigi Mangione will present a psychiatric defense. His attorneys will argue that Mangione was suffering an extreme emotional disturbance during the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Revelation emerging from Mangione's court hearing today, the judge saying that he would unseal documents related to the defense strategy, ordering Mangione's attorneys to give the name of their psychiatric expert to the prosecution by tomorrow.

Since the December 2024 killing, Mangione has gained a worldwide following after allegedly expressing hostility toward the health insurance industry and the wealthy executives who control it.

We're joined now by CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson. He's a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. Joey, great to see you as always. What do you make of this defense?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I think, Boris, good to be with you, is that it's what the defense has. Right. Remember, there's overwhelming evidence in this case.

They had these pretrial proceedings which set the rules of engagement. The defense tried to remove the gun from the equation, saying that the actual search was unlawful. Judge said, no, the gun's admissible.

Judge, the defense tried to remove the silencer. Right. Judge said, no, the silencer is admissible.

They tried to remove the manifesto. It's admissible. And so in the face of overwhelming evidence, including the connection to the gun at the scene, right, with respect to ballistics, with respect to DNA evidence, you're in a rock and a hard place.

And so I think the defense is going to embrace this defense called extreme emotional disturbance in an effort to explain not that he was mentally ill, that's distinguishable bars, but that he had a sudden loss of self-control, which motivated him to commit this criminal act.

SANCHEZ: So the burden of proof, of course, is on the prosecution. What would they have to prove in order to dissuade a jury that he was under emotional distress and had this episode?

JACKSON: Yes, so what happens is the burden of proof, yes, is on the prosecution to establish that it was an intentional killing. However, when you introduce EED, right, extreme emotional disturbance, the defense now has a burden to show, is it more likely than not that he was under this emotional disturbance?

And two things will be at issue. Number one, was there a sudden temporal loss of control at the time that he committed this act?

Number two, was it reasonable that there would be such a break, right? Is it a justifiable excuse that he has? And so I think the prosecution is going to attack it on those two prongs.

Number one, there was nothing temporal or loss of self-control about it. There's a significant plan. There's a 10-day sort of staking out of the specific area where this occurred.

There's a manifesto involved. They'll repeatedly be this sort of ongoing indication of this planning. And in addition to that, the prosecution will say, Boris, it's just not reasonable.

Many people have grievances and problems. They don't ultimately manifest them by killing anyone. So this is what they have.

And I should also say, Boris, that it's not a complete defense, right? It's a defense which lessens ultimately your exposure. What does that mean in English?

In the event the jury buys that he had this temporal break, right, of emotion to go sudden loss of control and he killed him, and the jury buys that it was reasonable, what it does is it would reduce murder to something less called manslaughter. So now you're facing 25 years in jail, not 25 to life as he would upon a murder conviction.

SANCHEZ: Joey Jackson, always appreciate the expertise. Thanks so much.

[15:35:00]

So we now know exactly what the U.S. and Iran have agreed to in this Memorandum of Understanding to end the war and start 60 days of negotiations on a permanent deal. We'll dive into those details after a quick break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We are continuing to follow our breaking news. President Trump just arrived in Paris after wrapping up the G7 summit near Geneva, and tonight he'll attend a state dinner at Versailles Palace hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron. This comes just a few hours after the U.S. released its official 14-point agreement to end the war with Iran. It sets up a new 60-day phase to work out a final deal on Iran's nuclear program, and it's expected to be signed on Friday. We're joined now by Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.

He's a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, thank you so much for being with us.

I wonder, as you look at this agreement, how would you describe what it does?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, Brianna, this just shows what a huge blunder this illegal war against Iran has been from the very start. There's no doubt that we are worse off today than when the war started. And this agreement essentially says Iran will reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which was, of course, opened before the war started, in exchange for waiving some of the sanctions and other things that benefit Iran.

But I also will say that when you're digging a hole, you should stop digging. So, you know, my view is that we should go forward with this MOU, but every American should recognize what a blunder this has been. What Iran has been able to show is how they can use the Strait of Hormuz as a choke point to extract concessions.

Many of us understood that before they started this stupid war. Unfortunately, Donald Trump and Netanyahu apparently are just learning that now.

KEILAR: So it reopens the Strait for 60 days, or this period of negotiations on nuclear issues, which is an extendable period of time if Iran and the U.S. mutually agree upon it. But after that, Iran and Oman are to negotiate the administration of the Strait. So there are concerns.

What does that look like? Could there be fees? Is there a way for the U.S. to ensure that Iran cannot close the Strait at any point in the future, cannot charge for passage of the Strait in the future?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, Brianna, as you suggest, we really don't know what comes next. That's not clear from this agreement. This agreement lays out the ground rules for the next 60 days.

But Iran is not surrendering its right to ever charge fees or whatever else they want to call it with respect to ships going in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. So that's just another example of something that we may have to deal with in the future that we were not dealing with prior to the attacks that we and Israel launched against Iran.

KEILAR: So looking, and obviously you are vehemently in disagreement about the start of this war. You called it a stupid war. But considering where the U.S. was at this point with the global economy at a standstill, did the U.S. have any other option besides an agreement like this?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, Brianna, what I do know is that when you're digging a hole, you should stop digging it. We are in a worse spot than we were before we started this war. But we would be in a worse place if we don't get into an agreement. So as I look at this agreement, you know, I do hope they'll move forward and sign it. But again, it's important to recognize that this has been a big setback for the United States of America. That doesn't mean that this isn't the best way out at the moment.

But we should never have been in this moment because we've lost 14 American service members, hundreds wounded, thousands of civilians killed, oil and gas prices up and up, other prices up and up. And at the end of the day, we're actually worse off because we are now saying in exchange for opening the Strait that was open before, we're going to provide a waiver on sanctions.

So it is what it is. It's just very clear proof that we should never have started this stupid illegal war in the beginning.

KEILAR: The money that Iran gets here, they can immediately sell oil upon this agreement being signed. Within 60 days, the U.S. and regional partners come up with a plan for the rehabilitation of Iran, ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. How do you see that in comparison to how the Obama era JCPOA handled the lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian assets and interest?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, look, the JCPOA, which was, of course, a diplomatic agreement, no lives were lost. Prices didn't go through the roof for Americans. And it did prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

And it had in place very strict verification regime so that we could immediately detect if Iran was violating its commitments with respect to limits on nuclear enrichment. With respect to this agreement, we don't know. I mean, we don't know what the next 60 days will bring.

I did hear, you know, President Trump say the other day that we've gotten Iran to commit that they don't want to develop a nuclear weapon.

[15:45:00]

Well, of course, Iran's been saying that for over 20 years. I mean, apparently nobody told Donald Trump that they had previously said that. So we don't know with respect to the nuclear file.

What we do know is that as part of this first phase, which has nothing to do with the nuclear weapons negotiation, the Trump administration has agreed to waive sanctions, which, as you point out, will mean that Iran can earn a lot more on its oil sales. Again, I want to be clear.

I think this is probably the only way forward right now. But nobody should be under any illusion that we're better off now. We are worse off as a country as a result of this war against Iran.

KEILAR: You wrote an op-ed in the New York Times a few weeks ago about, as you put it, the hard truth that your party needs to face. You said, "Democrats have," quote, "provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American interests and values." Your focus was really on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on the two- state solution.

Here in the last few days, though, the president has been critical of Israel. But it was for something different. It was for how it's operating in Lebanon against Hezbollah.

And I wonder how you see his criticism and that he's not aligned with Benjamin Netanyahu on this. How are you seeing that?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think President Trump was absolutely wrong to join Prime Minister Netanyahu in attacking Iran in the first place. And remember, it was Prime Minister Netanyahu who said within the last month or so that he'd been waiting 40 years to do this, to attack Iran with the United States. And it turns out he finally found a president in Donald Trump who was stupid enough to say yes to that.

And of course, Donald Trump has now realized how challenging it can be when you try to team up with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And the situation in Lebanon is a case in point because Israel has been sort of laying waste to southern Lebanon. Their minister of defense, Katz, said that they were going to do to southern Lebanon what they had done in Rafah, which is a town in southern Gaza that was absolutely leveled.

And so I understand Donald Trump's frustrations with dealing with the Netanyahu government. He should have understood those before he got engaged in this stupid war against Iran in the first place.

KEILAR: Senator Chris Van Hollen, thank you for being with us.

VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.

KEILAR: New claims that Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell is receiving VIP treatment behind bars. Congressional staff went to this facility to see for themselves. We'll discuss what they found next.

[15:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Democratic lawmakers are seeking answers about Ghislaine Maxwell's alleged special treatment at a federal prison in Texas. The convicted associate of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was transferred to the minimum security facility, you might recall, after an interview with the Justice Department last year. Staff from the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees checked out her new facility and what they saw apparently left them with even more questions.

CNN's Annie Grayer joins us now. So, Annie, what did Democrats find out?

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, they left very frustrated, Boris, because they didn't get answers to some of their most basic questions. They were asking the warden why Maxwell was transferred to this lower security prison or who made that decision. And Democrats reported back that they did not get clear answers on that. Now, from their tour, what they reported was that this lower security prison really felt like a sort of college campus with a lot of green spaces. And they learned that Maxwell is the only person in that prison who is a registered sex offender of the over 600 women that are in that facility. So take a listen to what the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, who was one of the two committee staffs who went to this prison, had to tell us last night about the visit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: We asked the warden today about Ghislaine Maxwell being essentially a sexual predator, being a sex offender. He mentioned to us that she is the only of the 600 plus women that are there. She is the only convicted sex offender at that facility.

And he could not answer and does not know why she was actually moved there. That is outrageous. This is a cover-up.

And Todd Blanche should explain who directed the move and why she's in this facility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAYER: So for Democrats coming out of this visit, all eyes are on Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was the one who interviewed Maxwell last year. And after that interview, shortly after Maxwell was transferred to that lower security prison, Democrats want the Republicans to call in Todd Blanche for an interview. And certainly this is expected to come up in Blanche's confirmation process, where he is trying to be the permanent attorney general for the Department of Justice.

SANCHEZ: Yes, no doubt lawmakers want to ask him about that. Annie Grayer on Capitol Hill, thank you so much.

Stay with CNN. We'll be right back.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: We'll leave you today with a moment of levity, CNN chief congressional correspondent and anchor of Inside Politics Sunday, Manu Raju got to live out his baseball dreams this afternoon, trading in the anchor desk for the pitcher's mound.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(VIDEO SHOWING MANU RAJU THROWING FIRST PITCH AT CUBS GAME)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Not bad! All right, Manu is a colleague, of course, but he's a lifelong Chicago Cubs fan. So you can imagine just how thrilled he was to throw that ceremonial first pitch at last night's game. He posted this on social media with the caption, checked off the bucket list.

SANCHEZ: A huge moment. He looks so official, the facial expression as he's launching that thing. I texted him that we were going to feature the pitch and he texted me back.

[16:00:00]

Oh boy.

KEILAR: Oh boy. It's so nerve wracking. There's like a whole stadium.

SANCHEZ: You had a chance to throw a first pitch at a Nats game.

KEILAR: Yes.

SANCHEZ: You almost hit a kid.

KEILAR: I didn't, but they put kids behind home plate. So if I messed up, I would have.

SANCHEZ: They set you up for failure.

KEILAR: Thank goodness. You know who's really good at baseball? Kasie Hunt in "THE ARENA" with her starts right now.

END