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.

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.

The case began as many federal investigations do – with an undercover cooperator. Somehow, law enforcement investigators with the FBI identified William Rick Singer, the founder and chief executive officer of a nonprofit “college placement organization” called the Key, as a person engaged in unlawful activity. Though the precise details have not yet been shared, it is clear that they ultimately confronted him with the evidence of his illegal activity and made a deal with him: cooperate against the people who had enlisted his help in order to minimize his eventual punishment.

Mr. Singer then started recording his telephone calls and conversations with his criminal clients. Those calls apparently revealed a wide-ranging series of scams designed to get students into the schools of their choice. For example, Singer arranged for students who had struggled on the college entrance exams to get favorable disability diagnosis from an enlisted medical professional so as to get more time to take their tests. Then, he also arranged for the prospective students to take their college placement tests under the supervision of a paid-for proctor who either corrected their answers or permitted someone else to take their tests for them. Singer made arrangements to have students appear to be successful athletes when they were not, or flat-out bribed college athletic coaches into agreeing to tell the admissions office that they needed the students for their college sports teams. Some of the college coaches were allegedly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to fraudulently accept students onto their teams (and therefore, into the school) without the relevant athletic credentials.

The evidence against some of these parents is going to be overwhelming and devastating. Of course the FBI is in possession of numerous recorded conversations about the details of the scheme, as well as emails and text messages, between the conspirators. There will inevitably be bank records and wire transfers showing the “donations” made by the parents to Singer in furtherance of the scheme. Some of the messages will be particularly damning; for example, the co-chairman of the international law firm Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, Gordon Caplan, is charged with paying Singer to help his daughter improve her college entrance exam scores, among other things. Caplan was allegedly recorded stating that he had no problem with the moral implications of his actions, but was only concerned about the consequences should he be caught. Statements like those make it virtually impossible to prevail at trial.

Some of these defendants may attempt to argue that they were unaware of what exactly they were paying Singer to do, or that there were other unrecorded conversations that paint their understandings in a different light. However, assuming that these defendants all eventually plead guilty, the next question is the sentencing exposure for the defendants. (Note: the ultimate charges are likely to be violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and/or 1346).

The crimes with which these defendants are charged – mail/wire and honest services fraud – do not carry mandatory minimum prison sentences, meaning that they could receive non-incarceratory sentences. The sentencing judge will be required to consider the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in deciding how to sentence them, but the judge need not be bound by the recommendations set forth by those Guidelines. Most defendants can realistically expect to be sentenced within the Guidelines unless there are mitigating factors justifying a downward departure or reduction in the sentence.

The Sentencing Guidelines include a table with an X and Y axis that helps judges determine the appropriate sentence for a defendant. On the X axis lies the criminal history of the defendant. Given that the defendants appears to be wealthy professionals, it is probably safe to assume that they will all be classified as having the lowest criminal history score, Level I. On the Y-axis is the factor called the sentencing level, which corresponds to the seriousness of the crime.

To calculate the Guidelines sentencing level in a fraud case, one looks to 2B1.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The base offense level would be 6 in this case, and then the level is increased according to the amount of money at issue in the fraud. Here, with the parents having allegedly donated from between $200,000 and $6.5 million in fraudulent payments, the sentencing levels would be increased anywhere from 12 to 18 levels, resulting in base offense levels between 18 and 24. Typically, when one pleads guilty in federal court, however, a judge will credit a defendant with a 2-3 level reduction in sentencing level for “acceptance of responsibility”. U.S.S.C. § 3E1.1 (the 3 level reductions are for base offense levels at level 16 or higher). Thus, the defendants in this case might be getting sentenced in the range of Level 10-15. At Level 10, the Guidelines recommend a sentence of 6-12 months in prison, and at Level 15, they recommend a sentence of between 18-24 months in prison. Admittedly, there may be other factors that could influence the base offense level calculation, but that is a reasonable estimate at this stage.

Some people may scoff and say that there is no way that wealthy and powerful parents will actually go to federal prison. They may have a point. Pursuant to Section 3551, a judge is supposed to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to advance the interests of sentencing. A good argument can be made that these individuals do not need to be incarcerated to protect the public. These defendants have been publicly shamed, and some, like Gordon Caplan, are likely to suffer other significant punishments, like disbarment. However, a judge needs to promote a healthy respect for the law, and arguably these defendants brazenly and knowingly cheated the system. Prison sentences may be necessary to send the appropriate message to other people thinking about trying to unlawfully bribe their children into an elite university. Also, the recent prison sentences imposed in the somewhat-comparable college basketball federal scandal suggest that these parents could realistically be looking at short but meaningful prison sentences.

The author, Matthew Galluzzo, is a former Manhattan prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney with the law firm of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. He regularly represents defendants in federal criminal cases throughout the United States. He most often practices in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, where he is a member of the Criminal Justice Act panels.

This sentence is near the top end of the Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines for Cosby. Indeed, the guidelines recommended a sentence of between 22 and 36 months, and Cosby essentially got a sentence of 36 to 120 months. This case illustrates a few issues, probably, as it relates to sentencing. First, remaining defiant in the face of sentencing may feel good to a defendant, but judges hate it. The best way to get leniency is to show remorse and ask forgiveness, and the opposite is absolutely true as well. Cosby may think he is going to be vindicated on appeal, but frankly, I would bet a lot of money that he will not. So, copping an attitude like he did throughout the post-conviction and sentencing phase almost certainly did nothing but cost him a few of his precious remaining years of life in jail. Any smart defendant knows that even if he feels like he was wrongly convicted, the best thing to do at sentencing is say you’re sorry to the judge and victim. Cosby does not appear to be a smart defendant.

Second, judges are human, and this case might demonstrate that. Although he is not supposed to the evidence of Cosby’s prior alleged misdeeds and sexual assaults of other victims (some of whom testified at Cosby’s trial in support of Andrea Constand’s complaint), the judge probably factored those things into consideration in concluding that he was a sexually violent predator worthy of serious detention. It would have been understandably difficult for the judge to ignore those other purported complainants, not to mention the dozens of others who have publicly come forward.

We shall soon know whether Cosby will be forced to report to prison right away or after his appeal has been concluded (of course, if he wins on appeal, he will not be incarcerated unless he is convicted on a retrial). But, barring an unlikely reversal on appeal, it appears quite likely that Cosby will be incarcerated for at least the next three years.

If you or a loved one require the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney, you should strongly consider contacting the attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Matthew Galluzzo, in particular, is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor whose opinion on sex crimes and investigations has been sought after by countless news and televisions reporters over the years.