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.

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.

The crime of wire fraud occurs when someone voluntarily and intentionally uses an interstate communications device (such as a telephone) as a part of any scheme to defraud another of property, or anything else of value.

The main criminal statutes that apply to wire fraud are 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349. Those statues refer to fraud by wire, radio, or television.

Section 1343 defines as guilty of wire fraud: “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster ….. or emergency or affects a financial institution.”

Therefore, to be criminally culpable under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, a defendant must have intentionally and voluntarily used a communication device that sends information over state lines as part of a scheme to defraud another out of money or other valuables. It can involve the use of a landline telephone, cell phone, computer, tablet, or another electronic device.

U.S.C. 1349 applies to attempts to commit wire fraud. Indeed, “[a]ny person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”

A person could be charged with wire fraud if the following four elements of the crime are established: (i) the person voluntarily or intentionally participated in or devised a scheme to defraud someone of money or other valuables; (ii) the person did so with the intent to defraud the person. Moreover (iii) It was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used, (iv) in the scheme.

The wire fraud statute does not make an explicit reference to materiality. Yet materiality is an element of the offense, because at the time of the statutes’ enactment, the word “defraud” was understood to “require a misrepresentation or concealment of [a] material fact.” Thus, other than in an honest services context, a “scheme to defraud” for mail or wire fraud purposes must involve a material misrepresentation of some kind. material if it is capable of influencing the intended victim.”

Wire fraud can involve many different schemes to defraud a person using electronic communications such as emails, webpages, and social media. The federal wire fraud statute specifically mentions wire, radio, and television communications, but it also includes many fraud offenses involving computers and the internet. The information transmitted can be any writes, signs, signals, pictures or sounds used in the scheme to defraud. In order for wire fraud to take place, the person must voluntarily and knowingly make misrepresentations of facts with the intent to defraud someone of money or property.

Fraudsters use various methods to get personal credentials and passwords including:

• Malware: Malware (short for “malicious software”) is designed to gain access, damage or disrupt a computer without the knowledge of the owner.
• Phishing: Phishing is a scam typically carried out through unsolicited email and/or websites that pose as legitimate sites and lure unsuspecting victims to provide personal and financial information.
• Vishing and Smishing: Thieves contact bank or credit union customers via live or automated phone calls (known as vishing attacks) or via text messages sent to cell phones (smishing attacks) that may warn of a security breach so as to obtain account information, PIN numbers and other account information they need to gain access to the account.
• Accessing Email Accounts: Hackers gain illicit access to an email account or email correspondence through spam, computer virus, and phishing.

For example, creating a webpage to ask for donations for a charity or a personal tragedy that is fraudulent could be prosecuted as a wire fraud. Moreover, stealing bank and other financial information to transfer money out of a person’s bank and other financial accounts, to make charges on his credit cards, or to take out credit cards in his name, or sending a mass email to a person’s email contacts with a tragic story as to why the person needs money immediately are other examples of wire fraud.

Wire fraud is a federal crime. Since November 1, 1987, federal judges have used the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to determine the sentence of a guilty defendant. A judge will look at the “base offense level” and then adjust the sentence based on the specific characteristics of the crime. With all fraud offenses, the base offense level is six. However, other factors will then influence that number, including, for example, the dollar amount stolen, how much planning went into the crime and the victims that were targeted.

Thus, for example, a wire fraud scheme that involved the theft of $300,000 through an intricate scheme to take advantage of the elderly will score higher than a wire fraud scheme that an individual planned in order to cheat their employer out of $1,000.

Other factors that will influence the final sentencing “score” include the defendant’s criminal history, whether or not the defendant tried to impede the investigation, and whether the defendant willingly helped investigators catch other people involved in the crime.

Usually, a person convicted of wire fraud faces significant potential penalties. A single act of wire fraud can result in fines and up to 20 years in prison. However, if the wire fraud scheme affects a financial institution or is connected to a presidentially declared disaster or emergency, the potential penalties are fines of up to $1,000,000 and up to 30 years in prison.

If you or a loved one have been accused of a federal wire fraud charge, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when:

(1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or slungshot, shirken or “Kung Fu star”; or

(2) He or she possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, machete, razor, stiletto, imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon with intent to use the same unlawfully against another;

Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor. (Note: there are other subsections of this charge that are far less common than these two subsections). The maximum penalty is one year in jail, and a conviction for these charge can have negative immigration consequences for non-citizens residing in the United States.

Thankfully, these cases can often be successfully defended by a savvy lawyer. Sometimes, an experienced criminal defense attorney can litigate the legality or constitutionality of the police search that yielded the weapon in the first place, potentially resulting in a dismissal of all charges. We have also once successfully obtained an acquittal for a client by persuading a jury with a technical argument that the knife seized from his client was not in fact a gravity knife (as alleged by the prosecutor). Most often, though, clients seek to negotiate reasonable dispositions for these cases that do not result in permanent criminal records or immigration consequences. The attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have successfully negotiated favorable results or dismissals dozens of times by demonstrating to prosecutors the good characters or backgrounds of their clients. If you or a loved one have been charged with possessing a weapon, you should contact them immediately.

Per the statute: “A person is guilty of Rape in the Third Degree when: 1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old; 2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or 3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person’s consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some factor other than incapacity to consent.”

Subsection 2 is the most common charge, which involves a criminal charge being brought against an older person (21 years old or older) and a complainant younger than 17. Notably, this charge can be brought against the will of the younger party, meaning that it is not necessary for the complainant to “press charges” for the older person to be convicted. Sometimes these charges are proven without the testimony of the younger party by medical evidence or pregnancy, third party witnesses (who catch and observe the people in the act of sexual intercourse), or admissions by the older party.

Sometimes, undercover officers pretend to be minors online and communicate with older men interested in having sexual intercourse with a minor. Those cases sometimes result in those older men being charged with Attempted Rape in the Third Degree, under the theory that the defendants attempted to have sexual intercourse with someone younger than seventeen, but obviously did not because the police officers were not really minors. These charges are nonetheless serious and can result in sex offender registration.

The other two subsections of this charge are vaguer and apply to situations where there is a lack of consent or an incapacity to consent on the part of the alleged victim. Notably, this charge does not apply in situations in which the victims were allegedly “physically helpless,” meaning severely intoxicated, asleep, anesthetized, or in a coma, basically. These other types of “incapacity to consent” include mentally disabled or incapacitated victims, victims in custody of a correctional facility or juvenile placement agency, those undergoing medical or psychological treatment at the moment of the sexual act, and some other hypothetical situations. Thus, it is flat-out illegal for a corrections officer to have sexual intercourse with an inmate, or for a doctor or therapist to have sexual intercourse with a patient during a treatment session, or for anyone to have sexual intercourse with a mentally disabled or incapacitated person. Recently, the outcry over a woman who claims to have been raped by police officers while in their custody caused legislators to propose a bill adding prisoners in police custody to the list of those “incapable of consent” for the purpose of this charge, as well.

Finally, this charge is a serious felony and can be punishable by up to four years in state prison. It also results in registration as a sex offender. If you or a loved one have been arrested or are being investigated for a charge of Rape in the Third Degree, you should strongly consider retaining the services of The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor and has successfully represented dozens of clients against serious charges of rape and sexual assault. He has been quoted as an expert on sex crimes investigations countless times by television and newspaper outlets, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, Fox News, and CBS News, among others.

The sentencing range for the original criminal charges under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines was 12-18 months (Base Offense Level of 13 with a two level increase for obstructing justice offset by a possible two level reduction for acceptance of responsibility following a guilty plea). Of course, the client also now faced the possibility of additional criminal charges and penalties for acting as a fugitive and failing to appear in court. The prosecution initially submitted a proposed plea agreement whereby the client would receive a sentence of between 12-18 months in prison.

However, the attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo presented to the federal prosecutor considerable mitigating evidence of our client’s life story and family, as well as circumstances surrounding his original crimes. Ultimately, the prosecutors agreed to allow the client to plead guilty to the second count of the original indictment and avoid additional charges for acting as a fugitive. The second count of the indictment carried a 0-6 month Guidelines sentence, representing a considerable savings on the original 12-18. Then, we were able to persuade the judge to schedule an expedited sentencing hearing and ultimately to sentence our client to time served. Thus, instead of receiving a sentence of between 12-18, as it originally appeared our client would, our client received a sentence of less than four months. Obviously, the client is quite happy with the result.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a violation of federal criminal law in Brooklyn or Queens (i.e. the Eastern District of New York), you should strongly consider contacting the experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Their team of former prosecutors has considerable experience representing individuals charged with a wide variety of crimes in that courthouse, and may be able to help you as well.

§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor’s intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.

Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

“O.G.A.” covers a broad range of conduct; cases where convictions for O.G.A have been upheld include situations where defendants pulled the emergency brake on a subway car without any valid reason to do so, refused to move through a metal detector at a county courthouse in a manner which prevented others from entering, or ran on the “set” of an undercover “buy-and-bust” operation after being warned to leave and shouting that the police were present. While the statue requires “intimidation, or a physical or independently unlawful act,” merely refusing to cooperate with a police officer by giving information, or failing to turn over a driver’s license or registration when asked to do so will not fall within the ambit of the statute (although it might subject the actor to liability under the Vehicle and Traffic Law). Essentially, any act committed with the intent to frustrate the purpose or execution of an official acting in a lawful capacity can qualify, like smacking a summons book out of a police officer’s hand to prevent him or her from writing a ticket, for example.

Obstructing Governmental Administration seems to be committed most when street encounters between police officers and civilians go wrong. There are two scenarios where the charge is applied with the most frequency, the first being where civilians try to stop police officers from placing third parties under arrest, either by standing in between officers and the third parties, or by assaulting police officers and/or jumping on them to foil the detention (which also subjects the intervening person to the additional charge of resisting arrest, also a class “A” misdemeanor). Charges can be elevated to a felony if a person uses pepper spray or mace on the officer, or causes physical injury to the officer.

The second common scenario involves the swallowing of drugs in order to prevent officers from recovering them. While no actual “force” is used by the act of swallowing a bag or vial, courts have held that swallowing drugs in an attempt to avoid arrest for drug possession constitutes O.G.A., as well as the crime of “Tampering.” In either of these situation, the additional act of attempting to prevent the police or official actors from discharging their duties usually serves no purpose other than to escalate the situation, and results in additional charges for the police to bring to the District Attorney’s Office when these cases are being written up.

If you are charged with the crime of Obstruction of Governmental Administration, you should not hesitate to retain an experienced criminal attorney immediately. A conviction for O.G.A. results in the incurrence of a permanent criminal record, and is punishable by up to one year in jail.

“New York Defense Attorney Explains the Crime of “Obstructing Governmental Administration.”