The Mangione case is heating up. Defense lawyers are pushing hard to exclude key evidence—specifically, what authorities claim is a 3D-printed firearm. Prosecutors? They're fighting tooth and nail to keep it admissible.

This isn't just another court drama. The intersection of emerging manufacturing tech and legal precedent raises questions we've seen echo across digital asset regulation. Can evidence sourced from decentralized production methods face different scrutiny? How do traditional legal frameworks adapt when the tools themselves blur jurisdictional lines?

The outcome could set interesting precedents. Not just for this defendant, but for how courts handle evidence tied to technologies that exist outside conventional supply chains. Something worth monitoring as regulatory clarity remains the industry's constant challenge.