What Is a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT)?

A Desk Appearance Ticket is a written notice issued by law enforcement directing an arrested individual to appear in criminal court on a specified date. DATs are commonly used for lower-level offenses, allowing individuals to be released from custody without immediate arraignment. Failure to appear in court as directed can result in a bench warrant for arrest.

Charges and Potential Penalties

Obstructing Governmental Administration (Second Degree)

Under New York Penal Law § 195.05, this offense occurs when someone intentionally obstructs or impairs a public servant from performing an official function through intimidation, physical force, interference, or an independently unlawful act. This is classified as a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, probation, and fines.

Resisting Arrest

Defined by New York Penal Law § 205.30, resisting arrest involves intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent a police officer from making an authorized arrest. This is also a Class A misdemeanor, carrying similar penalties of up to one year in jail, probation, and fines.

Trespass

Trespass charges can vary based on circumstances. In New York, criminal trespass ranges from a violation to a Class A misdemeanor, depending on factors such as the type of property and intent. Penalties can include fines, community service, or up to one year in jail for more serious offenses.

Criminal Mischief

Criminal mischief involves intentionally damaging another person’s property. Under New York Penal Law § 145.10, if the damage exceeds $1,500, it’s considered Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree, a Class D felony, punishable by up to seven years in prison. Otherwise, it is typically prosecuted as a misdemeanor.

Next Steps for Those Arrested

Individuals who received DATs must appear in court on the date specified in the ticket. Failure to do so can lead to additional charges and a bench warrant for arrest. It’s advisable for those charged to consult with an attorney to understand their rights and prepare for the legal process.

Legal and Community Implications

The arrests at Brooklyn College highlight the legal risks associated with protest activities, especially when demonstrations lead to confrontations with law enforcement or property damage. While the right to protest is protected, participants should be aware of the potential legal consequences of certain actions during demonstrations. These arrests can be especially problematic for foreign students on F-1 visas, as their immigration status can be placed in peril.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney who has successfully defended many students accused of illegal actions during political protests. He has helped students keep their criminal records clean and remain in school without suspension or discipline. If you or a loved one have been arrested in connection with the Brooklyn College protests, you should strongly consider engaging Mr. Galluzzo.

On May 7, 2025, approximately 75 pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested at Columbia University’s Butler Library after occupying the reading room in a demonstration organized by Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD). The university cited safety concerns and the presence of non-affiliated individuals as reasons for requesting NYPD intervention. Two campus safety officers were allegedly injured during the incident.

Many of those arrested were issued Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs), a common practice in New York for certain offenses. A DAT is a written notice issued by a police officer directing an individual to appear in criminal court at a future date in connection with an alleged offense. It allows the individual to remain out of custody until their court date.

Relevant Statutes and Potential Charges

The protesters may face charges such as trespassing (Penal Law §140.05 or §140.10), disorderly conduct (Penal Law §240.20), or criminal mischief (Penal Law §145.00) if property damage occurred. There could also be charges of Obstructing Governmental Administration (Penal Law §195.05) or Resisting Arrest (Penal Law 205.30) for those individuals accused of fighting with law enforcement officers during their arrests. These offenses are typically classified as violations or misdemeanors.

Possible Penalties

Convictions for these offenses can result in prison sentences and permanent criminal records (which may impact future employment and education). These arrests are also particularly problematic for foreign students on F-1 visas, as they could negatively impact immigration status in the current environment.

Failure to Appear Consequences

If an individual fails to appear in court on the date specified in the DAT, the court may issue a bench warrant for their arrest. Additionally, under Penal Law §215.58, willfully failing to appear within 30 days can result in a separate violation charge. In some cases, Mr. Galluzzo has been able to appear in court for his clients in lieu of their personal appearances.

Legal Considerations

Given the potential legal ramifications, individuals issued a DAT are advised to consult with a criminal defense attorney to understand their rights and options. Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney. He has represented many students arrested and accused of crimes relating to political protests, with an excellent track record of success. If you or a loved one have been arrested for the protests at Columbia University on May 7, you should strongly consider engaging Matthew Galluzzo.

News links:

Protesters arrested as Columbia calls in New York police to clear Gaza solidarity sit-in – as it happened

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators clash with security guards at Columbia University

Dozens of pro-Palestinian protesters arrested after Columbia calls in police

The trial judge will now be responsible for sentencing Mr. Majors. The defense lawyers may ask that the trial court overturn the jury’s verdict, but those sorts of motions are rarely granted. Instead, the defense lawyers will need to concern themselves for now with persuading the judge to impose a non-jail sentence. The court could sentence Mr. Majors for as much as one year in jail, which he would have to serve at the notorious prison on Rikers Island. However, the court could instead impose a sentence of up to three years’ probation (which would restrict his ability to travel, even for work), or other conditions like anger management or counseling. The defense attorneys will likely propose some sort of counseling program with community service and beg the court to not sentence him to probation so that he can travel to filming locations without interruption or complication. Obviously, this conviction may ruin his Hollywood career, as certain projects have already been put on hold or suspended as producers awaited the outcome of this trial.

If one had to predict, one would not expect the court to impose a jail sentence in a reckless assault case. First, Mr. Majors has no criminal history, which tends to militate strongly against jail sentences in relatively minor cases. Furthermore, the injuries sustained by Mr. Jabbari appeared to be relatively minor on the spectrum of assault cases; certainly, many assault trials involve much more serious injuries resulting in hospitalizations and/or permanent disabilities. Mr. Majors is a prominent person and the court might want to make an example of him, but he is also potentially able to do something positive for the community, as well. So, I would predict some sort of combination of anger management and community service, along with an order of protection in favor of Ms. Jabbari. The big question really is whether Mr. Majors will be sentenced to a period of probation, which would be a huge hindrance for his career.

The verdict is somewhat surprising here. There was some evidence that tended to suggest that Mr. Majors was a victim of Ms. Jabbari’s aggression. Indeed, he filed a report against Mr. Jabbari that did originally result in her arrest, as well. Moreover, an Uber driver who shuttled the two of them together about the time of the assault offered the opinion that Ms. Jabbari was initiating the conflict. It’s always difficult to second-guess strategic decisions made by attorneys in the trial, but Mr. Majors’ decision not to take the stand almost certainly cost him. Courts also instruct juries not to infer guilt from a defendant’s decision not to testify, but the jury had to perplexed by the fact that a charismatic stage and film actor would sit silently at the defense table and let his attorney make the case that he was a victim, without saying it himself.

Mr. Majors will be able to pursue an appeal if he so chooses, but appeals courts are loath to overturn verdicts based upon the facts. Typically, questions of guilt or innocence are entrusted to the jury, as are assessments of witness credibility. Those decisions usually remain undisturbed. If the defense can make the argument that the trial court made an improper legal ruling that had a material effect on the outcome, then they may have a chance on appeal. But there’s nothing in the record here that stands out as particularly controversial, in terms of legal decisions made by the court during the trial. So, it is more likely than not that this judgment will be affirmed on appeal.

The author of this article, Matthew Galluzzo, is a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. As a prosecutor, he was a supervisor in the domestic violence bureau of the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the same office that prosecuted Jonathan Majors in this case. He was worked as an appellate prosecutor responding to criminal appeals, and later prosecuted murders and sex crimes cases. In 2023, in recognition of his service to the French government and his successful representation of dozens of French citizens, he was knighted by the nation of France and is now a Chevalier in the French Order of Merit.

According to the indictment filed in the Southern District of New York, Bob and Nadine Menendez were bribed by three Egyptian businessmen: Will Hana, Jose Uribe and Fred Daibes. The latter allegedly offered the couple several hundred thousand dollars in exchange for economic protection of their interests.

A years-long bribery scheme between the co-defendants allegedly led the senator heading the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to use his influence to promote arms exports to Egypt in exchange for bribes that benefited him directly and indirectly through his wife.

Robert Menendez and his wife are charged with several federal offences: Conspiracy to Commit Bribery[1], Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Fraud[2] and Conspiracy to Commit Extortion Under Color of Official Right[3].

Specifically, according to the indictment, Robert Menendez used his influence to provide the US government with sensitive information to help the Egyptian army. Robert Menendez also allegedly advised and pressured a US Department of Agriculture official to protect a commercial monopoly granted to Mr. Wael Hana by Egypt.

In addition, Bob Menendez allegedly promised to use his influence and power in seeking to interfere in a criminal investigation initiated by the New Jersey Attorney General’s office concerning Jose Uribe, one of the co-defendants who offered a Mercedes-Benz C-300 to Nadine Menendez.

Finally, Robert Menendez allegedly used his influence by recommending President Joe Biden to appoint an individual to the position of U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, potentially allowing Bob Menendez to interfere with the federal criminal prosecution of Fred Daibes, another co-defendant.

In June 2022, the FBI executed a search warrant in the couple’s house in New Jersey. The FBI reportedly found the alleged benefits of the bribery scheme : a luxury vehicle, household furnishings, over $480,000 in cash, much of it slipped into envelopes and hidden in clothing. Over $70,000 was also found in Nadine Menendez’s safe. Some of the envelopes contained Fred Daibe’s fingerprints and/or the DNA of his driver. Other envelopes were found in jackets bearing the name “Menendez” and hanging in his closet.

At a press conference, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, pointed out that the senator’s official website explicitly details the list of services he could not ethically provide to his constituents under any circumstances : “Compel an agency to act in your favor or speed up the processing of your case”, “reverse or influence decisions made by private companies”, “intervene in court cases…”.

The senator entered his not-guilty plea in federal court in New York on Wednesday, 28^th of September.

Sen. Menendez, is facing three different counts, each of which carries serious potential penalties. In addition to significant financial penalties, the first count of conspiracy to commit bribery carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, the count of conspiracy to commit honest service carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and the last count of conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

This article was written by Marie-Lou Serna, of the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC, with the assistance of Matthew Galluzzo.

[1] In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 201(b)(1)(A) and (C)

[2] In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349

[3] In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former sex crimes prosecutor who now represents both plaintiffs and defendants in civil sex abuse cases. He also regularly defends individuals accused of white collar crimes and fraud in federal court.

The link to the interview is available here.

A gag order basically instructs a party to a litigation to refrain from speaking publicly about the case. A New York judge overseeing a criminal case has the power to issue a gag order over one or more of the parties to the case. Gag orders are relatively rare, however. They certainly are not done as a matter of routine. The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, after all, and courts are generally loath to abridge those rights. However, gag orders may be necessary to protect other valuable rights under the Constitution, such as the right to a fair trial (contained in the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights), as well as the all-important “true administration of justice”.

Sometimes defense attorneys ask courts to order prosecutors not to talk about their clients’ cases publicly for fear that they would prejudice any potential jurors. For example, the attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell – convicted in Manhattan federal court of assisting notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein – contended that the federal prosecutors had tainted potential jurors by hosting press conferences in which they laid out the facts of their case. Ultimately that application for a gag order was denied, but the federal judge did admonish the attorneys to adhere to the rules of professional conduct for lawyers, which generally prohibits attempts to unfairly influence juries (or potential juries) outside of the courtroom. After all, the paramount rule of trials was explained by Justice Holmes in 1907: “The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether private talk or public print.” Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).

Sometimes defense attorneys work the media circuit and give pre-trial interviews to the press to try to influence potential jurors before their clients proceed to trial. Trump’s attorneys appear to be doing quite a bit of that lately. In one case, the attorneys for Joey Buttafuoco were gagged by a judge because of their admitted attempts to sway the jury pool with statements to the media. People v. Buttafuoco, 158 Misc. 2d 174 (County Court, Nassau 1993). That gag order was especially easy to justify in light of the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 7-107 (22 NYCRR 1200.38) relating to trial publicity, which prohibits the sort of behavior done by the attorneys.

Prosecutors do not have a right to a fair trial, per se, because that right stems from the U.S. Constitution and protects individuals accused of crimes. One might think, then, that a defendant cannot be gagged. After all, the purpose of a gag order – normally – is to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial. However, a gag order can be imposed upon a defendant where the defendant makes deliberate attempts to undermine the “true administration of justice” by tampering with the jury pool and making extrajudicial statements. Already, Mr. Trump has made numerous postings in social media (Truth Social etc) about the alleged bias of the prosecutor and the trial judge, and slammed the charges as being baseless and politically motivated, among other things. Mr. Trump might argue that his statements about the case relate to his campaign for president. While that may be true in part, there is no question that he hopes to persuade potential jurors of his innocence by making these claims about the case. In the least, he has to be aware of the fact that his public statements about the case – which immediately become the subject of numerous national media stores – could taint the jury pool in Manhattan. So, a gag order seems likely in this case. In short, if Mr. Trump wants to speak to the jurors in his case, he will have to take the oath and subject himself to cross-examination.

Given what we know of Mr. Trump’s personality and character, it seems inevitable that he would violate such a gag order and speak publicly about the charges. Notwithstanding his general inclination to talk about everything that crosses his mind, it would actually be difficult to run for president without discussing pending criminal charges against oneself. So, then, it is worth asking what would happen if Mr. Trump were to violate the gag order.

Violations of gag orders are prosecuted by courts pursuant to N.Y. Judiciary Law Section 750. A court would have to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the violation of the court order before rendering a decision. The decision would be made by the court and not a jury. The maximum jail punishment for a violation would be thirty days at Rikers Island. There could also be a fine up to $1000.00.

Courts in the past have considered whether judges who have been personally attacked or criticized by a litigant outside of the courtroom can be permitted to preside over the subsequent contempt proceeding. The Supreme Court has concluded that “[a] constitutional rule which disqualifies a Judge solely based upon criticism of rulings and disobedience to court orders during a trial is excessive and unwarranted.” In re Hirschfield, 184 Misc.2d 119, 122 (N.Y. County Sup. Ct. 1999) It should not be assumed “that judges are so irascible and sensitive that they cannot fairly and impartially deal with resistance to their authority or with highly charged arguments about the soundness of their decisions.” Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 584 (1964). But a judge might be disqualified from presiding over a contempt hearing on a gag order where the judge becomes so “embroiled in… controversy” that he should recuse himself based upon the “likelihood of bias.” Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (194).

Prosecutors might request a gag order at Mr. Trump’s arraignment on April 4. The court may decline to issue such an order at this point, and may instead admonish the parties not to speak publicly about the case. But if Mr. Trump and his attorneyscontinue to wage a public media campaign about the case, then the judge will likely be inclined to grant a gag order. One doubts that Mr. Trump could possibly abide by such an order, or that he would. In that case, it seems altogether plausible that we will have a violation hearing on a gag order with the very real possibility of Mr. Trump being incarcerated pre-trial for a violation of a gag order. But that of course remains to be seen.

Matthew Galluzzo is a criminal defense attorney in New York City and former Assistant D.A. in Manhattan. He has appeared as a legal commentator on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, Dateline, BBC, and other television news programs throughout the world. He has been quoted by newspapers including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist, among others. Fluent in French, Mr. Galluzzo has also been interviewed countless times in French by European and Canadian news channels. For his services to the French government and French citizens facing criminal charges, Mr. Galluzzo was recently named a knight in the French National Order of Merit.

The case presents several interesting questions. First, the investigation was uncommonly lengthy. Law enforcement spokespeople explained that “The crime was immediately reported, and the Guernsey County Sheriff’s Office conducted a detailed investigation.” That detailed investigation evidently took over three years to complete, for some reason. This is not the typical length of a rape investigation; indeed, it is an extraordinarily long time to investigate a rape accusation. A few things might have been going on during that three year time period.

First, there might have been DNA to analyze. Not every rape investigation involves DNA evidence, and DNA does not necessarily prove that a rape occurred at all, anyway (as DNA evidence could also indicate a consensual sexual encounter). Generally speaking, though, DNA analyses do not normally take more than a few months to process – it depends entirely on the state laboratory’s backlog.

Law enforcement might have made several attempts to record Mr. Sills making an admission. Oftentimes, after a complainant reports a sexual assault, the complainant wears a police-issued wire and confronts the suspect in person and tries to get him to confess to his crime. On other occasions, they call the suspect on the phone while sitting with police officers who are listening and recording the conversation. These “controlled calls” are done in the hopes of eliciting an incriminating apology, generally. These types of investigative techniques are not violative of suspects’ constitutional rights because the suspects are not in custody. It is unknown whether this happened in Mr. Sills’ case, but it is a common police tactic in these types of investigations.

Law enforcement probably invited Mr. Sills to speak with them with the assistance of his attorney. This is not uncommon for police or prosecutors to do during the course of a sex crimes investigation. In New York City, for example, detectives from the Special Victims Unit have been known to visit the apartments of suspects or call them to say that there has been a complaint and that they would like to “hear their side of the story”. Only idiots would agree to such an interview without consulting with an attorney, of course. Prosecutors in the city have also been known to call suspects and politely suggest that they retain attorneys to speak to them about complaints.

It is unclear from the articles about Mr. Sills’ case whether he “proffered,” or spoke with law enforcement, about the allegations. Certainly, though, that process could have added significant time to the investigation.

In any case, the matter ultimately made its way to a grand jury about three years after the fact. A grand jury is a group of 23 people selected from the community at random (much like trial juries) who sit in a private chamber and hear testimony from witnesses under oath about various criminal cases. Prosecutors present the evidence and respond to questions from the grand jurors. There are no judges inside the chamber, and there are no defendants or defense attorneys. Defendants do typically have the right to testify in their own defense, should they so choose, but they are not otherwise permitted to observe or participate in the proceeding. If a majority of the grand jury believes that there is reasonable cause to believe that a crime has occurred – a much lesser standard of proof than proof beyond a reasonable doubt – then a person becomes indicted, or formally charged with a crime (typically a felony). So, in Mr. Sills’ case, we can safely assume that the complainant testified in the grand jury and was sufficiently convincing to persuade the grand jury to formally charge and arrest Mr. Sills.

The author of this article, Matthew Galluzzo, is a criminal defense attorney and former sex crimes prosecutor in the Manhattan D.A.’s Office.

It would appear from the complaint that Mr. Michel has an obvious defense that he did not intend to defraud anyone, and that he fully intended to give his customers their NFTs eventually. He may have received the funds and then encountered difficulty in acquiring the NFTs for his customers due to volatile market conditions or other issues.

It is always difficult to estimate sentencing exposure at this stage of a criminal case, but preliminary estimates might suggest the following for Mr. Michel:

Under the federal sentencing guidelines, the base offense level for a wire fraud is usually 6.

For cases involving the alleged theft of over $1.5 million dollars, the sentencing guidelines require that 16 levels be added, resulted in an offense level of 22.

Where there are more than 10 victims of a fraud scheme (or the scheme involves mass-marketing), the guidelines require an additional two offense levels, resulting in a level 24. USSG 2B1.1(b)(2).

There might be an additional two levels relating to the fact that the fraud occurred in a foreign jurisdiction (USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)), but that is unclear.

So, if Mr. Michel is convicted at trial, assuming he has no criminal history (i.e. Criminal History Category I), his sentencing guidelines range would be 51-63 months, or about 4-5 years in prison. Judges use a Sentencing Table promulgated by the Sentencing Commission – see here.

If he pleaded guilty prior to trial, Mr. Michel would likely receive a reduction of 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in an offense level of 21 and a range of 37-46 months (3-4 years).

However, there is no mandatory minimum sentence in this case, meaning that he could theoretically be convicted and receive a sentence of time served followed by supervised release.

Mr. Michel would likely be ordered to pay restitution to his victims equal to the amount of their losses, and, if he is not a citizen of the United States, then he would be almost certainly deported following his prison sentence and unable to ever return to the United States (inadmissible).

Matthew Galluzzo is an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. He specializes in the defense of federal criminal cases in New York City. He also speaks fluent French and has been knighted by the nation of France for his zealous defense of French nationals accused of crimes in the United States and his service to the French Consulate of New York City.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or accused of a federal crime involving wire fraud charges, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. He has achieved excellent results for many clients accused of these crimes in New York City federal courts and may be able to assist you as well.

The allegations in these cases suggest that the defendants used the public enthusiasm and fervor around cryptocurrency investing to run what amounted to a Ponzi scheme with a crypto appearance. The defendants allegedly went to crypto conventions and investor events and flashed conspicuous wealth in order to persuade people to invest in their cryptocurrencies. The defendants allegedly used a software platform to allow investors to see their investments growing, but the defendants would not allow the investors to withdraw funds. Meanwhile, these defendants allegedly used the investor funds for their own purposes and spent the money lavishly.

The defendants might argue that there was in fact a real cryptocurrency investment that simply failed, as so many cryptocurrencies have. (Some reputable economists might even argue that the entire cryptocurrency industry is, at base, a Ponzi scheme in and of itself.) Prosecutors will use bank records and other evidence to show that these investor accounts ran dry because they were emptied by the defendants.

The charges here are predominately conspiracies to commit Wire Fraud (18 USC 1343) and Money Laundering (18 USC 1956(h)). A person commits wire fraud, basically, when he or she commits fraud using the internet or a telephone system. Money laundering involves taking stolen money (or proceeds from an illegal activity) and knowingly converting it into another form or depositing it into a bank account, for example.

The defendants face significant potential prison sentences. Generally, the penalties for wire fraud and money laundering depend largely on the amount of money stolen. However, the penalties can increase significantly where there are many victims, or when a person acts as a manager of others in the criminal conspiracy, or when the person has a criminal record. In addition to prison penalties, the defendants, if convicted, can expect to owe their victims significant amounts in restitution.

Matthew Galluzzo is an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. He has successfully represented many individuals accused of federal wire fraud and money laundering and understands how prosecutors investigate and build their cases. If you or a loved one have been accused of wire fraud in federal court, you should strongly consider contacting him today to discuss his potential representation.

The indictment charges the following individuals:

LUIS FELICIANO, a.k.a. “Louminaty,” 38, of East Hartford
JOSE TIRADO, a.k.a. “Joselito” and “Leet,” 41, of Hartford
CARL JONES, a.k.a. “M.O.B.,” 41, of Hartford
LUIS ROBLES, a.k.a. “Lou,” 25, of Hartford
ROBERTO DIAZ, a.k.a. “Dragon Eyes,” 52, of West Hartford
MILTON ROSARIO, a.k.a. “Little,” 39, of Hartford
ANGEL DELGADO, 58, of Hartford
MARTIN MALDONADO, 33, of Hartford
JEREMY OZUNA, 27, of New Jersey
ROBERT VALLE, 58, of Schenectady, New York
MARSHA WATSON, 33, of Bangor, Maine
DEVIN TEXIRA, a.k.a. “LV,” 25, of Hartford
JOSHUA RODRIGUEZ, 31, of Hartford
JOEL DELEON, JR., a.k.a. “Psycho,” 41, of Hartford
HERIBERTO MENDEZ, a.k.a. “Big Ed,” 43, of Hartford
CHRISTOPHER GILLIARD, a.k.a. “CJ” and “Gilly,” 34, of Hartford.

They are charged with violations of 21 U.S.C. Section 846 (a conspiracy to distribute narcotics, meaning a working agreement to do a crime together) and violations of 21 U.S.C. Section 841. The seriousness of the latter charge depends on the quantity of the drugs for which the conspirators are responsible (or at least, the amount that was reasonably foreseeable to them as conspirators), with the most serious charge being 21 USC Section 841(a)(1)(A). That latter charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Other federal drug charges under Section 841 carry 5 year mandatory minimum sentences, and others have no mandatory minimum at all (though there could be a twenty-year maximum).

Several of the defendants are also charged with various firearms offenses. The 922g charge in this indictment means possession of a firearm by a “prohibited person,” which in this case means a person with a prior felony conviction. The 924c charge relates to the possession or use of a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics-related crime. So, just having access to the gun while operating as a drug dealer can be sufficient evidence of guilt for this crime. It could carry a potential five-year sentence to run consecutive to any narcotics-related sentence.

Notably, the press release explains that this case involves a significant quantity of fentanyl. That drug is oftentimes used to lace other drugs, make counterfeit pills (fake Xanax or Oxycodone), and all-too-often causes fatal overdoses. As such, the penalties for fentanyl can be significant, and individuals convicted of trafficking fentanyl may not be eligible for certain credits for early release from prison.

If you or a loved one have been charged with violating the federal narcotics or firearm laws, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. He is a federal criminal defense attorney based in New York and Connecticut and former Manhattan prosecutor.

The question on everyone’s mind has been whether Ms. Maxwell will finally disclose the names of the other purportedly rich and powerful celebrities who engaged in illicit conduct with minors and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Maxwell has steadfastly refused to do that, even after Epstein’s death (to the surprise of some). Ms. Maxwell initially denied being knowingly involved in any criminal conduct, and her statement at sentencing was hardly an apology, either.

Ms. Maxwell may also have a legitimate ground for an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. After the verdict, a juror disclosed that they had not told the Court during jury selection about having been a victim of a sexual assault. Judge Nathan (the trial judge) denied a motion for a new trial on that basis, and Maxwell will almost certainly pursue that argument on appeal.

The question now is whether Ms. Maxwell will consider disclosing the names of the Epstein “clients” pursuant to Federal Rule 35. That rule makes it possible for a convicted defendant to have their sentence reduced for providing “substantial assistance” to law enforcement following the imposition of sentence:

(b) Reducing a Sentence for Substantial Assistance.

(1) In General. Upon the government’s motion made within one year of sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person.

(2) Later Motion. Upon the government’s motion made more than one year after sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant’s substantial assistance involved:

(A) information not known to the defendant until one year or more after sentencing;

(B) information provided by the defendant to the government within one year of sentencing, but which did not become useful to the government until more than one year after sentencing; or

(C) information the usefulness of which could not reasonably have been anticipated by the defendant until more than one year after sentencing and which was promptly provided to the government after its usefulness was reasonably apparent to the defendant.

As you can see, Ms. Maxwell will need to disclose this information within a year, or it will be too late for her to benefit. She theoretically might try to appeal her sentence before making that decision to cooperate, but her appeal might take longer than a year to resolve. Clearly, though, were she to divulge important information about “the clients” to federal prosecutors, she might be able to reduce her sentence such that she does not risk dying in prison.

Matthew Galluzzo is a New York City federal criminal defense attorney and former sex crimes prosecutor in Manhattan.

This interesting and unexpected exchange provides a fun example to consider New York criminal law: What charges, if any, might have applied to this slap had it happened onstage in New York?

The most significant plausible charge here would be the Class A misdemeanor or Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law Section 120.00). That statute makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail to intentionally cause physical injury to another person. Here, however, it does not seem that Chris Rock suffered any physical injury significant enough to justify the charge. Indeed, although he was obviously dazed and it appeared to be a fairly hard slap, Rock carried on with his emcee duties and even made a few quips about what had happened. A physical injury, as defined by New York law, is supposed to be “substantial pain” and/or “impairment of a bodily function.” Surely Rock felt some pain from the slap, but it appears to have been too temporary to have really justified an assault charge under New York law.

Oftentimes, in situations like this, where the strike is forceful but the injury is fleeting, the defendant in New York gets charged with Attempted Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law Sections 110/1120.00), which applies where the person tried to hurt the victim but did not actually succeed. That is a class B misdemeanor that could apply to what Smith did. Smith might argue that because he used an open hand, he only meant to send a message but did not intend to actually injure Rock. A closed fist punch, on the other hand, would have made such an argument more difficult.

Certainly, this act would be sufficient for a charge of Harassment in the Second Degree, in violation of Penal Law Section 240.26. That charge applies to any unwanted or offensive touching of another person. A conviction for this offense does not technically give someone a criminal record, as it is a violation, and violations are not classified as crimes under New York state law. However, this is a potential maximum penalty of 15 days in jail for this offense. It seems plain that if Smith had smacked Rock in New York and were arrested and charged with this offense, it would be virtually impossible to defend against a conviction. That being said, people without criminal records charged with this offense are typically able to resolve these cases without jail; counseling and/or community service and/or anger management are more typical punishments.

If you or a loved one are a Hollywood actor charged with smacking another celebrity onstage before a live television audience, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor.

After a federal conviction – by guilty plea or by jury verdict – the defendant is interviewed by a specialized officer from the U.S. Department of Probation. These officers typically have backgrounds in social work, and it is their responsibility to prepare a biography – or presentence report – for the court. The judge uses this presentence report at sentencing to understand the defendant’s life, background, and circumstances. (The Bureau of Prisons also uses this report in determining the defendant’s prison designation.) The preparation of a report can easily take two months or more, as the interview has to be scheduled, a draft report prepared, edits and objections made by both the defense and the prosecution, and a final draft with a sentencing recommendation submitted to the sentencing court.

Following the preparation of the presentence report, both the prosecution and defense prepare sentencing memoranda for the judge. Both sides make arguments about the proper application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the sentencing factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Defense lawyers usually submit character letters from friends and family of the defendant, and sometimes the defendant also submits his/her own letter of remorse. Eventually, the sentencing court then holds a sentencing hearing at which both sides make oral arguments about the sentence and the court pronounces its decision. That sentencing hearing could be anywhere from 4 to 6 months after the conviction, though it could take even longer.

Every federal offense has a maximum and a minimum possible prison penalty, but it is the Sentencing Guidelines that help courts and defendants understand what Congress considers reasonable with more precision. The U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgates Sentencing Guidelines for each offense that includes factors for the courts to consider for each type of offense. For example, the Guidelines instruct the courts to consider a defendant’s role in the offense, how much money was stolen, how many drugs were trafficked, whether firearms were used or not in the offense, and whether any minors were injured.

It is thus extremely difficult to estimate Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines without knowing all the details of the case and her background, but she is clearly facing a significant sentence. When a person is convicted of sex trafficking or enticement of multiple individuals, the Guidelines instruct that a person should receive consecutive sentences for each victim. Here, there are three victims in the case with corresponding convictions, so the penalties for each offense will “stack,” rather than be imposed concurrently. See U.S.S.G. 2G1.1(d)(1). Assuming Ms. Maxwell has no prior criminal record, she is probably looking at Guidelines ranges of around 97-121 months per victim, imposed consecutively. U.S.S.G. 2A3.1(a)(2). The court and parties will refer to the Sentencing Table to calculate the Guidelines range for each offense. See Table. There could be other aggravating factors or reasons for departures from these Guidelines calculations, however, so this is hardly a definitive calculation. Regardless, a very rough and preliminary estimate has her realistically facing thirty years under the Guidelines, or more. Ms. Maxwell is sixty years old.

Following the sentencing, Ms. Maxwell will be able to pursue a direct appeal to the federal appeals court (in this case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals). She can make legal arguments about alleged mistakes by the trial court in its rulings and/or arguments that the sentence was excessive. Prior to sentencing, Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers could also pursue various appellate arguments with the trial judge, Judge Nathan, though those probably have zero chance of success and would probably only serve to delay the sentencing. At first glance, there does not appear to be many arguments displaying any probability of success.

A defendant of course does not have to testify at trial, as they are entitled to a presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Moreover, a defendant’s decision not to testify cannot be held against them, either. That being said… sometimes defendants simply cannot expect to win without testifying. Elizabeth Holmes, for example, elected to testify that she is not criminally responsible for the alleged fraud at Theranos because she was controlled and abused by her boyfriend, who also managed that doomed corporation. Though she may ultimately be convicted, Ms. Holmes almost certainly made the jury’s decision more difficult by testifying. It was somewhat surprising to see Ms. Maxwell decline to testify here, because she frankly had no chance of winning with the strategy she employed. Nobody wins by sitting silent while four complainants point the finger at you with similar stories of abuse. It’s just basically impossible in this #MeToo era. That’s how Cosby and Weinstein lost at trial, and how Cuba Gooding Jr. and Andrew Cuomo will likely be convicted someday, too.

Despite the defiant post-verdict language from her lawyers, Ms. Maxwell likely knew that she was going to lose at trial. Perhaps she chose not to testify because she hopes to one day sell her story to newspapers. After all, you cannot sell what you give away for free on the witness stand. It’s also likely that she did not testify so that she could be cooperating witness someday. This is where the matter becomes truly interesting going forward.

Though most government cooperators choose to “snitch” before trial, it is possible to become a government cooperator after a guilty plea or conviction at trial. Virtually every government cooperator agrees to cooperate in exchange for a lesser criminal penalty, or for a shorter prison sentence. To be a cooperator, though, a witness cannot normally have testified under oath that they had nothing to do with the criminal conspiracy at issue. After all, a government cooperator is typically expected to testify under oath against his or her co-conspirators, and the government cannot elicit testimony from a witness that contradicts prior sworn testimony. Interestingly, Ms. Maxwell is actually indicted – and remains to be tried – for making allegedly false statements about this matter under oath in a parallel civil proceeding. Those statements were relatively short and brief, however, so the government may be willing to overlook some minor prior perjury on her part, in exchange for truly juicy information. If Ms. Maxwell had testified under oath, though, she would have spent the better part of three days denyingher involvement on the stand under withering cross-examination. After that, she would have been useless to the government as a witness against other unnamed co-conspirators because she could not possibly testify against her co-conspirators at a future prosecution of them. She would have destroyed her credibility as a government witness by that point.

So, it is quite possible that Ms. Maxwell and her lawyers deliberately withheld her testimony at trial so that she could still possibly cooperate with the government after a trial conviction. There have been more than a few rumors that President Trump, President Clinton, and Prince Andrew may have been involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s illegal abuse of minors. Given Mr. Epstein’s suspicious suicide at MCC New York, many people have been clamoring to know whether powerful people have been trying to hide the truth about Mr. Epstein’s systematic abuse of minors. Surely, the government would like to know whether Ms. Maxwell can confirm those rumors or provide any documentary proof as to their involvement. Perhaps Ms. Maxwell did not want to be perceived as a snitch or rat by participating with the government voluntarily pre-conviction. But now that she has been convicted at trial, she may acknowledge the futility of her continued resistance and offer the government her assistance in pursuing other prominent people. Maybe she is determined to be loyal to the memory of her dead friend, Jeffrey Epstein, but it would be a bit surprising if she would be willing to die in prison for him at this point.

The author of this article, Matthew Galluzzo, is a New York City criminal defense attorney specializing in federal criminal law. He is also a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor. His thoughts and opinions have been published many times in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, among other publications. He is also a regular television commentator for Radio Canada.

According to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, the rapper and five other men trafficked in significant quantities of heroin, cocaine, and the especially-dangerous drug, fentanyl. The defendants (including Anthony Leonardi, Robert Leonardi, Brian Sullivan, Anthony Syntje, and Kavaughn Wiggins) have all been arrested and detained pending trial. Prosecutors claim to have recovered at least 16 kilograms of cocaine, 2 kilograms of heroin, and fentanyl, though it is certain that they will allege that the group is responsible for far more than that. Indeed, the press release describes the amount of drugs trafficked by the crew as “massive”.

Fetty Wap is unlikely to be released on bail pending trial, though it may be possible given his likely financial resources. However, in federal narcotics cases of this size and scale, the presumption for judges is that a defendant should be detained pending trial. Fetty Wap would have to convincingly demonstrate that he does not pose a risk to the public, and that he would not flee if released on bond. Given his resources (and possible ability to live abroad), the amount of prison time that he is potentially facing, the fact that his codefendants are indicted for using firearms, and the fact that he allegedly trafficked in fentanyl, which is notorious for causing fatal overdoses, it seems unlikely that he will be bailed out pending trial.

The maximum penalty for these charges (21 U.S.C. 841) is, in this case, life. The minimum statutory penalty is ten years in prison. In some cases, defendants facing ten year mandatory minimum sentences under 21 USC 841 are able to negotiate five year mandatory minimum sentences, or even plea agreements without mandatory minimums. However, given the amount of narcotics seized in this case, Fetty Wap is probably going to receive no better than a ten year mandatory minimum offer from the prosecutors, which he will either have to accept or try his luck with a jury.

The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines generally enable more precise estimates for how much time defendants are really facing, however. It is difficult to predict at this stage, though, as there are some unknown variables in Fetty Wap’s case. We do not know, for example, whether there are any overdoses potentially attributable to the defendants’ conduct. We also do not know whether Fetty Wap played a supervisory role in the conspiracy to traffic narcotics. Those factors can significantly increase the penalties for drug defendants. Pleading guilty, on the other hand, usually earns significant reductions in the sentencing range for defendants (as opposed to being convicted at trial).

Fetty Wap is of course presumed innocent. As of yet, we have no idea what evidence law enforcement has against him. But odds are that his outlook is very bleak. Federal indictments in cases like this tend to involve numerous controlled undercover purchases, wiretaps, surveillance, and confidential informants working with the government. Put another way, the evidence is typically overwhelming. It is thus no surprise that over 95% of federal criminal defendants plead guilty. So, Fetty Wap is unfortunately probably looking at a huge sentence that will end his music career and see him emerge from prison as an old man. It seems inexplicable that a talented artist with a lucrative career would risk everything to make illegal money in the drug trade. His lawyers will probably be seeking to get him the best plea bargain possible, and then beg a sentencing judge for leniency. That is oftentimes the best that defense attorneys can really do in these sorts of cases. But top notch advocacy for a client is truly invaluable and can make a huge difference in the outcome.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor who regularly represents criminal defendants charged with major narcotics crimes in federal and state courts throughout New York. He has helped many defendants escape prosecution, earn dismissals of criminal charges, and negotiate favorable plea bargain outcomes. If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with a serious drug felony, you should contact Matthew Galluzzo to discuss your options.

Ms. Exum is being charged with one count of Assault in the Second Degree, a class D violent felony in violation of New York Penal Law Section 120.05. A person is guilty of it when they intentionally cause injury to another person by means of a weapon or dangerous instrument. Stabbing someone definitely qualifies (indeed, if the injuries were more serious, she would be looking at Assault in the First Degree). This the appropriate charge here.

At arraignments, the judge will issue an order of protection in favor of the victim of the stabbing (i.e. Ms. Exum’s boyfriend/ex-boyfriend), precluding her from having any contact with him whatsoever. She cannot contact him electronically, through social media, in person, or through third parties (some judges even go so far as to say that you cannot like the other person’s social media postings). Even if Ms. Exum’s boyfriend forgives her and tries to call her, for example, she cannot speak with him or communicate with him without violating the order of protection and risking a re-arrest by the police. The order is not the victim’s to apply as he sees fit – it is issued by the court and must be obeyed. These sorts of orders are particularly complicated when the parties lived together, as the criminal defendant simply has to vacate and find somewhere else to sleep.

Frequently, victims/complainants in these cases do not wish to cooperate with law enforcement. When someone gets stabbed, the police are usually called, and an arrest usually happens. Police basically have to make an arrest in a situation like this. It is hardly uncommon for these victims to immediately try to undo the arrests or ask prosecutors to dismiss the cases. That doesn’t always work, however. Ms. Exum’s boyfriend/ex-boyfriend is not a plaintiff in a civil case, he is simply a witness in a criminal case prosecuted by the state. As such, prosecutors will get to decide whether to dismiss the case or not, regardless of the boyfriend’s preferences. And, the order of protection will remain in place so long as the prosecution continues. This is a frustrating reality for a lot of people involved in domestic violence cases.

As a practical matter, though, it can be very difficult for prosecutors to successfully prosecute domestic violence cases without cooperative victims. After all, their testimony is normally necessary to prove what happened during the crimes. However, there are some circumstances in which a prosecutor can prosecute a case even without a cooperative witness. Police have probably taken photographs of the injuries to Ms. Exum’s ex-boyfriend, and may have a 911 recording describing the crime in the heat of the moment (possibly causing it to be admissible at trial). Ms. Exum may have made admissions to police as to what happened, too. The statements that the ex-boyfriend made to emergency medical personnel might also be admissible at trial, even without his cooperation. Finally, it could be possible for prosecutors to subpoena the ex-boyfriend to testify about what happened, forcing him to either tell the truth or commit perjury under oath.

A stabbing case is serious and can certainly result in multiple years in prison. Assuming Ms. Exum does not have a criminal record, and the injuries are not too terrible, it may be possible for her to negotiate a deal for a misdemeanor with probation and anger management and counseling. But should she lose at trial, she could definitely face some time in prison.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for domestic violence, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced criminal defense attorney who has helped celebrities, athletes, actors, models, doctors, lawyers, and a variety of financial professionals defend against charges of domestic violence.

Of course some of these players may in fact be innocent. But you can expect the government’s case to be strong here. The prosecutors will probably be able to demonstrate that the medical/dental/chiropractic services detailed in these invoices submitted for reimbursement were not in fact provided. And the government almost certainly has the bank records, phone calls, emails, and text messages showing the transactions between Terrence Williams and the other participating defendants. There are probably several cooperating witnesses as well (i.e. former players who did not participate in the scheme though they were approached about it). So, most of these defendants – if not all of them – are likely to plead guilty. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of federal defendants do.

Sentencing at the federal level is an inexact science. There is no statutory minimum here, and sentencing judges will look to the federal Sentencing Guidelines for guidance. However, the sentences suggested by those Guidelines are merely advisory, and not mandatory or binding. In fraud cases, the biggest variable in the Guidelines calculation is the amount of loss (assuming these defendants mostly do not have criminal records already). The defendants will likely be in Criminal History Category I, on the left hand column of the sentencing table provided for by the Sentencing Guidelines. Their base offense levels for Wire Fraud/Health Care fraud would be six. See U.S.S.G. 2B1.1. But then, you would have to add an additional offense level for the amount of fraud. There is some debate about whether this number should reflect “actual loss” or “intended loss,” which would make a difference here as the intended loss (i.e. the amount of false invoices submitted) was $3.9 million overall, but the actual loss was $2.5 million overall. Theoretically, each member of the group could be held responsible for the entire $3.9 million, as they were co-conspirators in a group effort to defraud the HRA. However, normally, in fraud cases, defendants are held accountable, so to speak, for the amount of money they themselves were actually involved in stealing (though that is not always the case, it is a fuzzy question of foreseeability). Terrence Williams, however, as the mastermind of the scheme, would probably have to add at least 16 levels to his sentencing offense level, in light of his being in charge of the entire scheme. Additionally, “masterminds” or managers of criminal enterprises can have their sentencing levels increased by another four levels. Pleading guilty tends to get a defendant an overall three-level reduction in sentencing offense level, so Terrence Williams could find himself at a suggested Guidelines sentencing range of 57-71 months (offense level 25), or roughly 5-6 years in federal prison.

Many of the other defendants are likely to have sentencing guidelines ranges of less than a year, meaning that they will have good chances of receiving sentences of probation. Judges, in addition to the Sentencing Guidelines, also must take into consideration a variety of sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These factors include things like the history and characteristics of a defendant, and his educational and medical and rehabilitative needs, among other things. Generally, a judge must impose a sentence that is just and “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to serve the purposes of criminal sentencing. All of these defendants, should they be convicted, will also be ordered to pay restitution and/or forfeit the profits that they received from the scheme, as well.

Defendants in these sorts of cases can sometimes argue that they were unaware of the illegality of their actions, but that argument is rarely viable or plausible. They might also allege that someone else submitted the false claims on their behalf without their permission. Most defendants, however, simply make the best cases that they can to get non-jail sentences with restitution (i.e. repayment) of the fraudulent profits. Some defendants also choose to act as cooperating witnesses against defendants or health care providers in return for leniency. These options must be discussed with an experienced attorney.

Matthew Galluzzo is a federal criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor with experience defending people against federal charges of wire fraud and health care fraud. He is also a huge fan of the NBA and still plays in a weekly pickup game with middle-aged men.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or accused of the federal crime of wire fraud or health care fraud, give him a call to schedule an appointment.

For now, Ms. Ferrier is charged in a D.C. federal court with one count of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 871 (Threats against the President). Among other things, this charge makes it illegal for a person to knowingly deliver a letter containing a threat to take the life of the American President. The maximum penalty for this charge is 5 years in prison.

Ms. Ferrier is likely to face additional charges soon, however. For example, should law enforcement choose to charge her for the threatening letters she might have sent to the officials in Texas, she could face several counts of 18 U.S.C. Section 2332b (Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries). Basically, if a person attempts to kill an official of a U.S. government agency through the mail in a manner transcending national boundaries, then that person can be charged with this crime. Those charges would carry potential life sentences.

If Ms. Ferrier has a felony conviction stemming from her period of incarceration in Texas (it is unknown to the author), then she could also potentially be charged with a felony for illegally possessing a firearm as a felon. That crime would carry an additional potential maximum penalty of ten years in prison.

Finally, Ms. Ferrier was recently deported from the United States following her incarceration in Texas. As such, her attempt to re-enter the United States was probably also illegal. The applicable federal crime for illegal re-entries after removal/deportation is 8 U.S.C. 1326. The penalties for that crime depend upon the manner in which the person was removed/deported, and whether it followed a felony or aggravated felony conviction.

Ms. Ferrier may attempt to use a psychiatric defense. The content of her alleged letters – not to mention her actions – certainly suggest some mental illness. The ultimate question, however, is not whether a defendant is mentally ill, but whether that mental illness prevented the defendant from appreciating the illegality or wrongfulness of his/her actions. The fact that the letters were sent anonymously suggests that the perpetrator knew the risks of being discovered, and sought to avoid capture. So, the defense – at first glance – seems unlikely to work. It may, however, be a mitigating factor at sentencing at some point.

Matthew Galluzzo, the author of this post, is a French-speaking criminal defense attorney in New York City. He recently commented on this matter on Canadian French-language television. He regularly represents foreign citizens in federal matters throughout the United States, and concentrates his practice primarily in the federal courts of New York City.

18 U.S.C. § 844(i) makes it a federal crime punishable between 5 and 20 years to “[m]aliciously damage[] or destroy[], or attempt to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” (The penalties are higher when public safety officers sustain injuries).

According to the complaint (as well as video footage available on the Internet) – Ms. Shader allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail (a bottle of flammable beer containing a burning rag or cloth) through the window of a police vehicle while it was occupied by four police officers. Thankfully, no police officers were injured. According to the publicly-available complaint filed against her, Ms. Shader has also admitted to the conduct. In addition, it is alleged that just a few hours later, the two aforementioned lawyers threw similar Molotov cocktails into an empty NYPD vehicle in Brooklyn.

Defending against these cases is going to be challenging for their attorneys. Ms. Shader probably has no defense whatsoever, assuming that her statement was voluntarily given to the police. As much as Mr. Mattis, an African-American attorney, may have a valid grievance about police brutality in America, there is no First Amendment or protest exception to this criminal statute. These attorneys could go to trial and attempt to persuade juries to “nullify” their cases, meaning find them not guilty where the evidence clearly proves their guilt. The Eastern District of New York is an extremely diverse jury pool – almost certainly the most diverse jury pool in the U.S. – but it seems unlikely that a jury of 12 would unanimously agree to forgive this sort of conduct that jeopardizes lives and safety.

Defense attorneys are going to have to fight hard to try to persuade federal prosecutors to charge their clients differently, in order to avoid stiff jail sentences. Federal prosecutors rarely if ever make deals for “lesser included offenses,” but there are some charges that could be potentially substituted for 18 U.S.C 844(i) that do not have the same penalties, e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 33, 18 U.S.C. § 231, 18 U.S.C. §2232. Perhaps they could be permitted to plead guilty to one of these charges in satisfaction of the primary charge. Otherwise, their attorneys might try to have the case charged in state court, as well, with the hope that their clients could plead guilty to an offense with a lesser penalty in state court with the federal court being dismissed as covered by those state-court pleas. This is admittedly something of a long shot but perhaps worth considering under the circumstances.

Ultimately, this case is most likely going to be about demonstrating remorse and good character to the prosecutors in the hopes of earning some mercy or leniency from them. A “proffer” could be necessary to do so. Otherwise, they’ll likely be forced to accept a plea with a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan state court prosecutor and experienced federal court defense attorney on the CJA panels for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. If you or a loved one have been arrested or charged with a federal crime, you should strongly consider contacting him immediately.

Oftentimes, in these cases in which no one was injured, a protester-defendant could – with the help of an experienced attorney – successfully negotiate a plea bargain whereby the protester will have no criminal record and spend no time in jail (such as an “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or a violation like Disorderly Conduct). In cases involving Desk Appearance Tickets, such negotiations may even be possible prior to the return date (i.e. the first court appearance). However, for reasons relating to principle, many protester-defendants refuse to accept any such deal, preferring to demand dismissal or a trial where their voices can be heard by a jury. Such an attitude is certainly understandable but it does tend to increase the risk of a negative result (such as a permanent criminal record).

Unfortunately, some protests escalate into confrontations with police officers. In those cases, charges like Assault in the Second Degree can sometimes be levied against arrested protesters alleged to have injured police officers. That charge is a serious felony that can carry real jail time, and should not be treated lightly at all. The best defense in these cases is often to argue that the defendant did not act unreasonably, and that any injuries to the police officer were sustained on account of his/her own aggressive or improper actions. In today’s current climate, that argument can have real traction with some jurors.

Thankfully, nowadays many protesters have video footage of their arrests, or their behavior just prior to being arrested. Oftentimes, this footage can be helpful to their defenses. In those cases, it may make sense for their attorneys to share the footage with prosecutors in the hopes of securing outright dismissals. Of course, an outright dismissal of an arrest charge can open the door to a lawsuit for wrongful arrest against the City.

Sometimes people attempt to intervene during an arrest of a protester by trying to prevent the police officer from apprehending someone else. In these cases, the intervenors typically are charged with Obstructing Government Administration or Resisting Arrest, misdemeanors. A person being unlawfully arrested can argue that they are not guilty of Resisting Arrest because the arrest was unlawful or unauthorized under the circumstances, and an intervenor may also be able to successfully argue the same thing.

Generally speaking, defendants (and defense attorneys) prefer some anonymity with respect to their cases, and prefer to try their cases discretely in the courtroom. However, for those defendants seeking trials by jury, attorneys should consider trying to garner public sympathy and/or publicity for the client’s case before the trial. After all, these cases frequently depend less on the facts presented at trial so much as they do upon the attitudes of the fact-finders (i.e. judges or juries) deciding the case.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or given a Desk Appearance Ticket in New York City for protesting, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. He is an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan state prosecutor. He is also a civil rights attorney who has successfully sued members of the NYPD for false arrest and police brutality.

Normally, in federal court, when a defendant chooses to plead guilty, he or she enters into a plea agreement with the prosecutors to establish certain terms and parameters for the sentencing. Plea agreements look like contracts and are usually at least five single-spaced pages long. A defendant acknowledges in the document that he/she is pleading guilty knowingly and voluntarily, and that he/she cannot take back the guilty plea once it has been entered before the court at a plea hearing. The agreements usually set forth the minimum and maximum possible penalties for the charged offenses, so that the defendant can acknowledge that he/she understands them. Also, a defendant agrees to plead guilty to certain charges in the indictment, and admits to certain conduct (for example, an amount of money fraudulently stolen, or a quantity of narcotics trafficked) that impacts the sentencing. Then, the parties to the plea agreement (the prosecutor and the defendant) agree to certain other factors (such as the defendant’s role in the offense, for example) that may establish where on the sentencing chart (for the Federal Sentencing Guidelines) that defendant’s sentence is likely to be. But, the agreements explicitly state that the ultimate decision as to the defendant’s sentence will be up to the sentencing judge to determine, based upon these established facts and parameters within the plea agreement, as well as the judge’s own considerations of the defendant and the defendant’s crime.

Here, in Ms. Loughlin’s case, the sentence has already been established by the agreement. This fact makes the agreement quite unusual for federal court, though hardly unprecedented. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), Ms. Loughlin has agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and in exchange, she will receive a sentence of two months in prison, a fine of $150,000.00, 24 months of supervised release with 100 hours of community service, and a special assessment of $100. The prosecution also will agree to dismiss the remaining charges against Ms. Loughlin and not pursue any further charges in connection with what it knows about this affair. This all depends, however, upon the court accepting the agreement and Ms. Loughlin’s guilty plea.

Basically, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), the court has to decide whether to accept this agreement with these terms before it will officially count. Tomorrow, during the sentencing hearing, the judge will ask Ms. Loughlin (with her attorney) whether she understands the agreement and its terms, and whether she is pleading guilty knowingly and voluntarily. The judge will then likely ask the prosecutor why the government feels this disposition is appropriate. Then, in the ensuing months, the prosecutor and the defense attorneys will submit written memoranda to the judge about why this disposition is appropriate. The defense memoranda will likely include a statement from Ms. Loughlin and supporting “character letters” from friends and family and people in the community. Ms. Loughlin will also undergo a biographical interview by a federal probation officer (usually a social worker) to be used to prepare a pre-sentence report about Ms. Loughlin for the judge. At the sentencing hearing, the court will indicate once and for all whether it considers the disposition to be appropriate. Assuming the judge does in fact find the disposition appropriate, the judge will sentence Ms. Loughlin as set forth in the agreement. In response, the prosecutor will move to dismiss the remaining criminal charges against Ms. Loughlin. If the court rejects Ms. Loughlin’s plea agreement, then the matter will start over as if Ms. Loughlin had not pleaded guilty.

These Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas can be advantageous in that they tend to provide more certainty for the parties. Normally, defendants plead guilty and find out their sentence at the sentencing date; sometimes the possible sentencing ranges can vary enormously. As a former state prosecutor accustomed to negotiating plea deals with fixed and expected penalties, it has always been somewhat confusing to me about how reluctant federal prosecutors are when it comes to these types of agreements. Federal prosecutors in New York and elsewhere routinely say “our office just doesn’t do that,” when asked about possible Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas. For whatever reason, most federal prosecutors just feel far more comfortable having courts decide upon appropriate sentences, rather than negotiate them themselves. Regardless, it seems highly unlikely here that Ms. Loughlin’s plea agreement will be rejected, or that she will not receive the expected sentence. The terms are not out of line with what other defendants in the “Varsity Blues” case have already received, and she might have received a sentence like this one with a “typical” open-ended plea agreement, anyway. Indeed, it might have been possible for her to avoid a prison sentence altogether in this case, but in light of the sentences handed out to other defendants by this court, it was probably in Ms. Loughlin’s best interests to eliminate the downside risk of receiving a more significant prison sentence by negotiating for this Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea.

If you or a loved one have been charged with federal mail or wire fraud, you should strongly consider contacting an experienced federal criminal defense attorney. Matthew Galluzzo, a former Manhattan prosecutor, regularly represents federal criminal defendants in federal courts across the country, and is a member of the Criminal Justice Act panels for both the Southern and Eastern District Courts of New York.