Mr. Galluzzo worked with a social worker to describe the client’s extremely difficult upbringing, which included parental abuse, poverty, homelessness, the foster care system, and drug abuse as a pre-teen. Mr. Galluzzo convinced the judge that pursuant to the recent Second Circuit decision in US v. Gibson, the client was not a Career Offender under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines despite his two prior convictions for NY Penal Law Section 220.39, resulting in his classification as a Criminal History Category IV instead of VI. He also convincingly described the overdose as a terrible accident and expressed his client’s remorse to the judge.

Ultimately, the Court granted a significant downward variance and gave him a sentence equal to roughly half that recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, 120 months (10 years). The client was pleased with the result and felt that his voice had been heard. The case was US v. Huertero, 20-cr-580 (ER) before Judge Ramos.

If you or a loved one are facing federal narcotics charges resulting in an overdose, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. A former federal prosecutor, he has experienced litigating against government prosecutors attempting to prove that defendants are responsible for fatal overdoses, and has effectively cross-examined scientific expert witnesses (doctors, toxicologists, pathologists, etc.) on the subject. He also knows how to effectively present requests for merciful treatment from sentencing judges. Give him a call to schedule a consultation.

Mr. Galluzzo practices primarily in the New York City area, as well as the federal courts of Connecticut, White Plains (NY), and New Jersey. However, he is also able to defend federal criminal cases in other jurisdictions under certain circumstances.

Matthew Galluzzo, a fluent French speaker, has successfully defended dozens of French citizens against serious charges brought in state and federal courts throughout America. For over a decade, he has served as the French Consulate’s Avocat-Conseil en Droit Pénal (Criminal Defense Lawyer). In that role he advised and assisted that institution on a wide range of issues pertaining to . In 2012, he was named a Young Leader in the French American Foundation, and he has been a regular radio and television commentator in French language media throughout Europe and Canada. He has also delivered several lectures about American criminal law to French law students in Paris and Versailles.

Some images from the ceremony are below.

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Thus, a person who was convicted of a criminal charge carrying a potential maximum penalty of one year – typically a felony – can be charged under federal law for possessing a firearm, even if the person was not in fact previously sentenced to a year or more in prison.

It is important to understand that possession is not the same as ownership. Possession can also be constructive, meaning that people can possess firearms in their homes, their cars, their places of employment, or their storage lockers, for example, without even being physically present at the time of the discovery of the firearms. If law enforcement can prove that a person has access to a firearm, and potential control over that firearm, then the person can be found to be in possession of it. Possession need not be exclusive either – under the law, multiple people can possess the same firearm. Indeed, it is common for all of the passengers in a vehicle to be charged with possessing a single firearm in a vehicle.

Determining the penalties for a violation of this crime are complicated and depend largely upon the individual’s criminal history. However, absent other aggravating factors, straight possession of firearm by a felon has a maximum penalty of 10 years. 18 U.S.C. § 924.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922g, you should strongly consider retaining the services of the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Mr. Galluzzo is an experienced federal criminal defense attorney and a former prosecutor. He defends relentlessly against the prosecution and advocates fiercely for his clients. Give him a call to discuss your case.

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien –

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that –

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

In these cases, federal law generally requires the agents to send a notice to the person from whom the cash was seized. The person who receives the notice is typically given the opportunity to make a claim for the cash, which includes an explanation as to the source of the cash. This response must be made under penalty of perjury, and can include supplemental documentation from a related business (such as tax returns or bank statements), or sworn statements from other people, among other things. Every once in awhile, the agents return the cash to the claimant based upon the representations made by the claimant, or based upon the evidence demonstrated to the agency. Our attorneys have successfully assisted clients in getting cash returned by federal agents this way.

If, however, the agency refuses to return the money based upon these representations, then they must commence a civil forfeiture action in federal court. The precise procedures for doing so are outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 983. Ultimately, in a civil court proceeding, the federal agency (DEA) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the seized cash represents proceeds of illegal activity. This is the civil standard for proof and it is much lower (easier) than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard necessary to prove a person’s guilt of a crime.

Of course, the DEA may also elect to arrest the claimant as a co-conspirator to narcotics trafficking or money laundering. In that case, the DEA and federal prosecutor (U.S. Attorney) can add a forfeiture count to the indictment, and a civil forfeiture proceeding no longer becomes necessary.

The person considering whether to respond to this initial seizure notice has many things to consider. First, the response has to be made under oath. Thus, a false statement relating to the seized cash is punishable as a federal crime pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Second, the claimant should carefully consider the circumstances under which the cash was seized. They should ask themselves: how did the DEA agents know that there was cash to be seized? Did they simply stumble upon it, or has there been a long-term investigation with wiretaps, cooperating witnesses, and/or surveillance that led them to make this cash seizure? The latter is normally more likely. Of course, it could be suspicious for a claimant to let DEA agents seize a huge quantity of cash without any protestations – after all, if, say, one million dollars in cash were lawfully obtained, wouldn’t the owner want it back?

Ultimately, the top priority for someone whose cash has been seized by the DEA should be avoiding an arrest or an indictment by federal authorities. Thus, any response to a seizure notice should be made after careful discussion with a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, has assisted many clients in these sorts of matters and is prepared to assist you or a loved one as well.

These cases usually arise out of undercover sting operations by the NYPD. In those cases, an undercover officer pretending to be prostitute wears a recording device and comes to an agreement with another person to perform a sexual act in exchange for money. The offer to pay or an agreement alone can be sufficient proof of the crime. Indeed, Penal Law 230.02 defines a person as being guilty of patronizing a prostitute when: “(a) Pursuant to prior understanding, he or she pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him or her; (b) He or she pays or agrees to pay a fee to another person pursuant to an understanding that in return therefor such person or a third person will engage in sexual conduct with him or her; or (c) He or she solicits or requests another person to engage in sexual conduct with him or her in return for a fee.”

The most common charge for such a Desk Appearance Ticket in Manhattan is Patronizing a Person for Prostitution in the Third Degree, in violation of Penal Law Section 230.04. This charge is a class A misdemeanor, meaning that it can result in a permanent criminal record and has a maximum possible jail penalty of one year.

In Manhattan, a person charged via Desk Appearance Ticket with a violation of Penal Law Section 230.04 is likely to be offered a plea bargain. The attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have been successful in many cases in persuading prosecutors to dismiss the misdemeanor charge in exchange for a plea to a violation like Disorderly Conduct (Penal Law 240.20). This charge is not permanently public and does not constitute a conviction for a crime under New York State law. Offenders have generally had to perform some community service and/or attend a Health Education class regarding prostitution. This result spares the accused the drawn-out process of a trial and eliminates the uncertainty that comes with a trial; as such, most of our clients have availed themselves of such arrangements.

Many people arrested for patronizing a prostitute believe that they were unfairly entrapped. Entrapment is a valid defense under New York State law and can apply in certain situations involving these charges. However, it is typically very difficult to prevail with an entrapment defense, as an accused is essentially forced to demonstrate that the undercover police officer overcame his will and coerced him into agreeing to pay money for sex. Notably, the conversations between the accused and the undercover police officer are usually recorded.

Sometimes the NYPD conducts long-term investigations of escort services, brothels, or other prostitution conspiracies, and arrests johns after arresting the prostitutes and organizers (pimps). This type of charge is uncommon, however. Proof in those sorts of cases typically consists of phone records, wiretap information and/or proof of payment.

If you or a loved one have been arrested and given a Desk Appearance Ticket for a prostitution-related offense in Manhattan, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Their team consists of two former Manhattan prosecutors (including one former sex crimes prosecutor) who have handled numerous such cases over the course of their almost 40 years of combined experience.

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.

If you or a loved one have been accused of rape or sexual assault, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Matthew Galluzzo, in particular, is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor and nationally-recognized expert on sex crimes investigations whose opinion on pending cases has been solicited by radio, television, and print news sources around the world.