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

Key Offenses Classified as Domestic Violence

In New York, acts of domestic violence are prosecuted under specific Penal Law sections, depending on the nature of the offense. Common charges include:

  *   Assault: Causing physical injury to another person.
  *   Menacing: Intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in fear of death or serious physical injury.
  *   Stalking: Engaging in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress or fear.
  *   Harassment: Engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person.
  *   Strangulation: Intentionally impeding the normal breathing or blood circulation of another person by applying pressure to the throat or neck.
  *   Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation: Similar to strangulation but may involve less force or result in less severe injury.
  *   Criminal Mischief: Damaging or destroying property belonging to another person.
  *   Sexual Offenses: Including sexual abuse, forcible touching, or rape.
  *   Coercion: Compelling or inducing another person to engage in conduct by instilling fear.

These offenses are categorized based on their severity, with corresponding penalties.

Penalties for Domestic Violence Offenses

The penalties for domestic violence offenses in New York City vary depending on the classification of the crime:

  *   Class A Misdemeanors (e.g., Third-Degree Assault, Harassment in the Second Degree):
     *   Up to 1 year in jail.
     *   Fines up to $1,000.
     *   Probation and mandatory counseling or anger management programs.
 
  *   Class E Felonies (e.g., Second-Degree Strangulation):
     *   Up to 4 years in prison.
     *   Fines up to $5,000.
     *   Probation and mandatory counseling.
 
  *   Class D Felonies (e.g., Second-Degree Assault):
     *   Up to 7 years in prison.
     *   Fines up to $5,000.
     *   Probation and mandatory counseling.
 
  *   Class C Felonies (e.g., First-Degree Strangulation):
     *   Up to 15 years in prison.
     *   Fines up to $5,000.
     *   Probation and mandatory counseling.
 
  *   Class B Felonies (e.g., Aggravated Sexual Abuse, Rape in the First Degree, Assault in the First Degree):
     *   Up to 25 years in prison.
     *   Fines up to $5,000.
     *   Probation and mandatory counseling.

In addition to these penalties, individuals convicted of domestic violence offenses may face:

  *   Protective Orders: Courts may issue orders of protection to prevent further contact between the offender and the victim. This can also result in defendants being prohibited from returning to their own homes or communicating with family members (such as children) while the charges are pending.
  *   Firearm Restrictions: Convicted individuals may be prohibited from possessing firearms.
  *   Employment Consequences: A criminal conviction can impact current employment and future job prospects.
  *   Immigration Consequences: Non-citizens may face deportation or difficulty obtaining citizenship.

Recent Legislative Developments

New York State has enacted several laws to address domestic violence more effectively:

  *   Melanie’s Law: Signed into law in November 2024, this legislation allows courts to issue orders of protection for all family members of domestic violence victims, regardless of their age. This law was prompted by the tragic murder of Melanie Chianese by her mother’s abusive ex-boyfriend in 2022. Previously, protective orders could only be issued for children under 18. Melanie’s Law aims to close this legal loophole and expand protections for domestic violence victims to all their family members.
  *   Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act: This act allows for reduced sentences for individuals convicted of serious crimes, such as murder, if they can demonstrate that they were victims of significant domestic abuse. The law aims to provide justice for those who commit crimes in response to prolonged abuse.

Conclusion

Domestic violence offenses in New York City are treated with utmost seriousness, and the legal system provides various avenues for both prosecution and defense. The penalties for such offenses can be severe, impacting an individual’s freedom, reputation, and future opportunities. Oftentimes complaints are made to the police in the heat of the moment, but arrests may be made and cases pursued even where complainants wish to retract their complaints.

If you or someone you know is facing domestic violence charges, it is crucial to seek experienced legal counsel to navigate the complexities of the legal system and to ensure that rights are protected throughout the process. Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan supervising prosecutor within the domestic violence unit. He is an experienced criminal defense attorney who has successfully defended dozens of people accused of domestic violence offenses of all sorts. If you or a loved one have been arrested for domestic violence, you should strongly consider engaging him to be your lawyer.

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.

Imagine this scenario: You’re running late for an important meeting in the city, and as you are standing at the subway turnstile you can see the subway train pulling up to the platform. In a nervous rush, you swipe your Metrocard only to get that dreaded message: SWIPE AGAIN THIS TURNSTILE. You swipe again and again to no avail. Realizing that your window is closing fast, you make the split-second decision to quickly hop over the bar. Sadly, though, an undercover police officer notices your amazing display of grace and athleticism and places you under arrest. Although it’s really only a crime worth $2.50, you’d be surprised at the consequences that you might face.

First and foremost, it is possible to spend a night in jail – or twenty-four hours – as a result of this arrest. Police officers have the authority to give first-time offenders a Desk Appearance Ticket for this sort of arrest, meaning that the arrestee gets taken back to the precinct, fingerprinted, held for a few hours, and then instructed to return to court for their arraignment at a later date (maybe about six weeks later). However, when the arrestee does not have valid ID on their person, or has been previously arrested, or has an open warrant (including even on a minor matter like a summons warrant), then that person is probably getting processed by the police as a “regular arrest,” meaning that they will be arrested and taken to Central Booking to await their arraignment straightaway. Obviously, a Desk Appearance Ticket is vastly preferable to a “regular arrest,” as the person is probably only in custody for about four hours, as opposed to maybe twenty-four hours per a normal “regular arrest”.

The charge for jumping a subway turnstile is Theft of Services, a violation of New York Penal Section 165.15, a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. Take a deep breath: probably no one in recorded history has ever been sentenced to a year in jail for jumping over a subway turnstile. In fact, first time offenders are likely to receive plea bargain offers involving lesser charges like violations or ACDs (adjournments in contemplation of dismissal) with community service. However, just the arrest itself can be especially problematic for certain categories of people.

For example, our office once represented a New York City public school special-education teacher that worked as an independent contractor. She was issued a Desk Appearance Ticket for jumping a turnstile, and unfortunately, just the arrest itself prevented her from working for a period of time. The reason for this is that there is a New York City statute that forbids the Department of Education from employing anyone with an open criminal case. Given that even an ACD usually carries with it a pre-sealing period of six months, even the normal “best-case” disposition for this charge would have precluded her from working – or receiving any salary – for six months! Thankfully, our office was able to petition the prosecutor to dismiss the charge at her first court date in the interest of justice.

Finance professionals also face very potentially serious consequences. Most FINRA-licensed professionals working for banks or brokerages are required to disclose any arrests to their employer – no matter how small – pursuant to their employment contract. Moreover, an arrest for Theft of Services would probably need to be disclosed on the U4 form submitted to FINRA (and this arrest would require a FINRA-licensed professional to immediately update their U4 form). After all, the charge of Theft of Services is a theft-related crime, and FINRA demands that misdemeanor charges involving the “wrongful taking of property” be disclosed (in contrast, arrests for drunk driving or drug possession may not need to be disclosed depending on the circumstances).

In addition, out-of-town tourists visiting New York City might receive a Desk Appearance Ticket with a return date for day in which they are not going to be in New York. These people face the unenviable prospect of having to fly back to New York City just to appear in front of a judge for a few minutes to resolve the case, and might even have to stay around longer in New York to complete community service. If you reside out of town and have received a Desk Appearance Ticket, you should strongly consider contacting The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo – they may be able to make arrangements to appear on your behalf such that your personal appearance is unnecessary.

Finally, non-citizens can face potential immigration-related issues as a result of this otherwise-minor charge. Though immigration questions relating to criminal arrests and convictions are very complicated, the Immigration and Naturalization Act does plainly make a non-citizen deportable for a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Moreover, theft of services (Penal Law 165.15) is probably a crime involving moral turpitude, meaning that a non-citizen could conceivably be deported or denied entry back into the United States for a conviction of this charge.

Of course, people can get arrested for Theft of Services at the subway in a variety of other fashions. For example, sometimes people absent-mindedly pass through the emergency gate that someone else has already to save themselves the trouble of swiping their Metrocard. Other times adults might use their child’s student Metrocard, and we have seen cases of students being arrested for “doubling up” with their friends on a swipe. All of these acts can result in arrests and prosecutions for a violation of Penal Law 165.15.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or given a Desk Appearance Ticket for jumping a turnstile or otherwise violating Penal Law 165.15, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Their team of three former New York City prosecutors has successfully obtained dismissals of these charges for a variety of students, professionals, and tourists, and they are willing and able to help you as well. We have had particular success in convincing prosecutors to seal or dismiss these charges earlier than typically done. Thus, if you are a professional, non-citizen, or aspiring college or graduate student that is facing serious consequences as a result of an open ACD for Theft of Services, you should also definitely consider hiring The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo – even if your court date has already happened and you have already accepted an ACD to resolve your case.

Unlike most of the other charges in Chapter 220 of the Penal Law, this particular charge focuses on the value of the narcotics, rather than the weight or quantity of the narcotics. Of course, the value of a quantity of narcotics can be easily disputed. Interestingly, this charge also aggregates the narcotics trafficking over time, whereas most state-court drug cases involve single transactions. Also, many times, charges are brought without sufficient proof that the accused played a supervising role in an actual organization.

This Class A-I felony drug charge carries serious potential prison sentences, as even someone without a criminal record faces a minimum 15 years in prison, with a maximum of 25 years.

Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor, has extensive experience representing individuals accused of large-scale narcotics trafficking offenses in state and federal court. If you or a loved one have been accused of Operating as a Major Trafficker, you should strongly consider contacting him to discuss the case.

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.

Donald Trump: ¿puede llegar a la presidencia de Estados Unidos? | La FM

As a preliminary matter, it seems reasonably likely that a trial will in fact happen. Having indicted a former president on numerous felony counts, it seems unlikely that they will make Mr. Trump a plea bargain offer to anything less than a felony. To anyone who knows Mr. Trump at all, it seems inconceivable that he would admit to any guilt of a crime, especially with a looming presidential election. Thus, in the absence of a plea bargain (which resolves most cases), a trial should happen.

That being said, it is quite likely that the trial might not happen before the presidential election next year. One can only imagine what would happen to the indictment if Mr. Trump were elected president prior to the trial taking place.

However, in the event that the trial actually takes place on Manhattan soil, the selection of the jury will undoubtedly be one of the most difficult aspects for Trump’s trial team.

To reach a verdict in a felony case, a jury of twelve must be unanimous in its decision. To convict, the jury must agree that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the event that one or more jurors disagrees with the others, then the judge must declare a mistrial (or “hung jury”) and the case has to be retried, as it is neither a conviction nor an acquittal.

From the defense perspective, a hung jury represents a victory. Certainly, Mr. Trump would tout it as such on social media and in his political campaign. Also, the delay in scheduling the re-trial would likely propel Mr. Trump past the election date. So, the defense team will likely employ a common defense strategy of searching for a rogue or contrarian juror who will disagree with the other jurors just to disagree, or to prove a point, or to seek fame and fortune on the speaking circuit for himself/herself. In short, the prosecution needs a unified team of twelve, but the defense just needs to persuade one juror. Frankly, it might be impossible for the defense to find twelve jurors in Manhattan who want to acquit Trump, so they will likely be aiming for a hung jury. That might mean finding one juror who hopes to make a name for himself/herself by making a controversial decision of national importance in the hopes of attracting the spotlight.

Potential jurors will be drawn from the island of Manhattan – they will all be residents of New York County. Jury service is a duty of citizenship and cannot be refused. People are selected to receive jury summonses randomly through the mail. Normally, hundreds of people are called down to 100 Centre Street every week and told to wait in a jury waiting room until (or if) they are needed by a judge starting a trial. There is no requirement that people have a certain level of education or familiarity with the law. Generally, it is only required that jurors be able to speak and read English and be healthy enough to sit through the trial.

In this case, the courts might elect to bring more people than usual down to 100 Centre Street for the date of Mr. Trump’s trial. Then, as Mr. Trump’s trial is set to begin, about 100-200 of them (maybe) will be brought into the courtroom and made to wait in the audience. Certain general instructions about jury service will be given to them by the judge, and then they will be made to swear under oath that their answers to questions will be the truth.

From there, about 14-20 of the potential jurors (panelists) will be randomly picked to sit in the front of the courtroom and endure questions from the attorneys on the case (both prosecution and defense). Usually, a wireless microphone is passed from panelist to panelist so that they can answer certain pedigree questions about themselves: their name, the neighborhood in which they live, their profession, their educational background, who they live with and who is in their family, whether they have ever been jurors before, whether they have ever been involved in litigation before, whether they have any friends or family members involved in the criminal justice process, and whether they have any issues that make them unable to be open-minded as jurors. Jurors answer these questions in open court before the attorneys and judge, though sometimes if issues are private or personal, they can be answered outside of the defendant’s presence.

Both sides – the prosecution and the defense – would be afforded ten peremptory challenges in total, meaning that they can remove possible jurors from consideration for the trial for any reason whatsoever without explanation or justification (though it is not supposed to be done for certain impermissible reasons, like race or gender). However, an unlimited number of panelists can be successfully challenged “for cause,” meaning that the panelist says something during voir dire (another term for jury selection) that indicates that they cannot be fair as a juror. CPL § 270.25(2)(c).

In a case like this, the court will almost certainly ask questions about pre-trial publicity and whether the jurors have formulated any opinions about this case. In high-profile criminal cases, panelists are not automatically excluded from jury service just because they have heard about the case, or because they may have an opinion about the defendant or the case. The threshold question is whether the juror can put aside his/her personal feelings about a person/case and whether he/she can evaluate the evidence with an open mind (and without considering any pretrial publicity or news reports he/she may have seen).

Any potential panelists who say they cannot be fair will be excluded from service. Of course, some of those people will be lying, as will some of the people who claim they are capable of being fair. But the judge cannot fail to exclude someone who does not give an “unequivocal assurance of impartiality” without risking a serious chance of reversal on appeal. This will be a very dicey area for the trial judge to oversee, as many potential jurors are likely to hesitate when answering this question about impartiality. On appeal, a defense attorney can even win a reversal of a conviction where the attorney had to use a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror who should have been dismissed for cause. Put another way, the problematic juror does not even have to have been on the jury for the defense to potentially win an appellate argument that an unfair juror was not excluded for cause.

As a practical matter, Donald Trump and his attorneys face an incredibly uphill battle in picking a jury in Manhattan. He only received 12% of the vote in Manhattan in the last presidential election, The remaining 88 percent or so of the residents of the island has a very unfavorable opinion of the former president. It is no stretch to say that there are likely many people in Manhattan who would want to get onto the jury(and say whatever was necessary during voir dire) just so that they could convict him at trial by any means necessary. Donald Trump is entitled to a fair trial just as anyone else, but he isn’t entitled to be tried by people who like him, either. After all, that might be impossible to arrange in Manhattan (or anywhere else near New York City).

Trump’s legal team might think it smarter to waive a jury and have the judge decide the case on the facts. This would be an interesting strategy. On the one hand, it would hopefully place the decision into the hands of a more objective jurist. On the other hand, should he be convicted, Trump could blame a single individual who he has already accused of being biased against him. Such a scenario might play well into his broader political objectives. Given the unfavorable landscape in Manhattan, the possibility of a “bench trial” by judge (instead of jury) seems significant here.

Matthew Galluzzo is a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan Assistant D.A. He has appeared as a legal commentator on TV and in newspapers across the world, including CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NPR, The Economist, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, and others.

If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault or forcible touching in New York City, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced team at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Their lead counsel is a former Manhattan prosecutor with considerable experience representing foreign citizens, with a strong track record of success.

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.

Specifically, Cuomo will be charged with one count of Forcible Touching, in violation of Penal Law Section 130.52.* That code makes it a class A misdemeanor to intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose:

1. forcibly touch the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person, or for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire; or

2. subject another person to sexual contact for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire and with intent to degrade or abuse such other person while such other person is a passenger on a bus, train, or subway car operated by any transit agency, authority or company, public or private, whose operation is authorized by New York state or any of its political subdivisions.

For the purposes of this section, forcible touching includes squeezing, grabbing or pinching.

The crime carries up to one year in jail as a maximum punishment, though jail is not mandatory. A person convicted of this crime can also be sentenced to community service, a conditional discharge, or probation, among other things. The first conviction for this crime does not trigger sex offender registration, but the second does. That fact may prove important for Cuomo as there are other complainants and possible criminal charges potentially awaiting him in the future. Should he be convicted of this charge, and then convicted of another similar charge in the future, then he would become a registered sex offender.

It is difficult to predict whether Cuomo would prevail in this case at trial. Obviously, he is a well known political figure and he has been the subject of tremendous publicity concerning these allegations, so it will be difficult to find an unbiased jury in New York. Also, the other interesting variable for trial will be whether other complainants who have made accusations against Mr. Cuomo will be allowed to testify in this matter regarding the groping at the governor’s mansion. This issue of Molineux witnesses, as they are sometimes called, in sexual misconduct cases, is a subject of tremendous disagreement amongst lawyers and judges. Prosecutors recognize that these witnesses can be extremely powerful (see, e.g. the cases of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, in which the key to conviction was the fact that multiple witnesses testified about similar conduct by the defendants). Defense attorneys see this sort of “gang tackling” with multiple cases and complaints being presented at once as being violative of due process and constitutional protections. Regardless of where you fall on that issue, there is no doubt that Cuomo’s chances will almost certainly hinge on whether he is permitted to simply defend against one complainant, or whether the jury will hear from several of his alleged victims at once.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former prosecutor from the Manhattan Sex Crimes Unit. As a defense attorney, he has won stunning victories in groping cases in both state and federal court.

*Cuomo will likely also be charged with Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree and other related misdemeanors.

Finally, it should be noted that although many crimes can be prosecuted in both state and federal court without violating the principle of Double Jeopardy, a state law crime prosecuted in federal court via the Assimilative Crimes Act cannot also be prosecuted in state court. See Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333 (1907).

If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with a crime occurring on federal property in the New York City area, you should strongly consider contacting the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Many defense attorneys know state law but are unfamiliar with the unique procedures of federal practice. Matthew Galluzzo, however, is a former Manhattan state prosecutor with over twenty years of experience who now specializes primarily in the defense of federal crimes. Give him a call to discuss your case and his possible representation of you.

See also: Dept. of Justice: Assimilative Crimes Act.

For example, if a person is convicted in federal court of selling even a small amount of drugs, and one of his customers dies from an overdose, the minimum penalty immediately becomes 20 years. If the convicted person also has a prior conviction for selling narcotics, that person may face a life sentence for having sold drugs that results in an overdose.

These cases can certainly be defended against at trial. It can be difficult for prosecutors to prove which drugs a deceased person may have consumed, who they purchased them from, or whether the drugs were actually responsible for the person’s death. However, these cases are extremely serious and should be defended by an attorney with experience in these matters. Matthew Galluzzo, a federal criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor, has defended individuals accused of trafficking narcotics resulting in death. If you or a loved one are facing federal charges relating to narcotics, you should strongly consider contacting him to discuss his possible engagement.

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.

Proffers can be done for many reasons: to initiate cooperation agreements, to attempt to persuade a prosecutor of one’s innocence, to offer information for an investigation, or to seek leniency at sentencing. Regardless of the reason, however, they should never be undertaken lightly.

First and foremost, a person proffering to federal law enforcement cannot lie. Obviously, if law enforcement discovers that the person has lied during a proffer, then that person’s credibility will be destroyed. Thus, any hope for a cooperation agreement or mitigation at sentencing will be eliminated. There are two other equally important reasons, however. First, a lie during a proffer can be prosecuted potentially as a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a federal crime to lie to a law enforcement officer. This is typically why prosecutors bring law enforcement agents (FBI, Homeland Security, etc.) to the proffers. Similarly, a lie during a proffer session can result in an enhanced sentence for any related convictions, under the theory that the lie “obstructed justice.” Finally, a lie during a proffer session could invalidate the proffer agreement, which otherwise protects a person from having those statements during the proffer session used against them.

Prior to doing a federal proffer, a person typically signs a “proffer agreement” like the one attached here. As you can see, it makes the statements “off the record” for the person talking to law enforcement. Basically, the prosecutor promises not to use any of the person’s statements against them on their direct case in the grand jury or at trial. There are some important exceptions, however. First, if the person lies during the proffer, then the entire promise is invalidated. Second, the prosecutor can use the information obtained during the proffer to find other evidence. Third, the prosecutor can cross-examine the person later with their statements should the person change their story at trial, for example.

Before doing a proffer, the attorney representing the person should understand everything and anything that the person might say. Thus, a practice proffer is a very good idea prior to walking into the real one. Moreover, the prosecutor should carefully consider the bigger picture from the prosecutor’s perspective: what does the prosecutor likely know, and what is the prosecutor trying to discover or accomplish with the investigation? Understanding how prosecutors think is critically important for defense attorneys representing people in federal proffers.

If you or a loved one have been asked to speak with law enforcement about a crime or investigation, it is critical that you retain experienced counsel to assist you. Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor who has represented numerous people who have proffered with law enforcement, and has been able to use those proffers to his clients’ advantage on many occasions.

The statute reads as follows (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)):

• (A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.

To brandish a weapon means to show the weapon to someone else during the commission of the crime, and to discharge the weapon obviously means to shoot it. There are additional penalties for the use of a rifle, shotgun, silencer, machine gun or assault weapon

Typical crimes of violence alleged in 924(c) indictments include homicides and attempted homicides, robberies, burglaries, assaults, and menacing.

Sometimes in these cases, a group of people are indicted for possessing a firearm that was only physically possessed by one of the members of the criminal conspiracy. Technically, all of the members of the drug trafficking conspiracy or violent crime conspiracy could be charged with the possession of the firearm under 924(c) if they were aware that their co-conspirator possessed the weapon. This is a common issue that arises at trial or in plea negotiations. A savvy defense attorney has to do a careful review of the discovery materials to determine whether there is any wiretap evidence, for example, that suggests that a particular client knew about the weapon at issue.

Non-citizens charged with this crime obviously face deportation as a possible consequence. Those 924(c) defendants with a significant violent or drug-related criminal history could also be categorized as career offenders and be subject to potentially enormous penalties and prison sentences.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a violation of 18 USC § 924(c), you should strongly consider contacting The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Mr. Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney who has successfully defended man individuals charged with this crime. Give him a call for a free case evaluation and a fair quote for his services.