Recently, former prosecutor Matthew Galluzzo appeared on PBS Channel 13 to explain several legal issues relating both the recent verdict in the Trump civil sex abuse trial and the new indictment of Congressman George Santos.
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.
On April 26, 2023, in a ceremony held at the French Consulate in New York, the French Consul General of New York, Jeremie Robert, bestowed upon Matthew Galluzzo the title of Chevalier in the French National Order of Merit. This knighthood was bestowed upon Mr. Galluzzo by order of Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, in recognition of Mr. Galluzzo’s exceptional services to the French government and in defense of French citizens accused of crimes throughout the United States.
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.
Matthew Galluzzo, a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan Assistant DA, spoke yesterday in French with reporters from a French language television news program based in Montreal, Quebec. A link to the interview is below.
Matthew Galluzzo is fluent in French and was recently named a Knight (Chevalier) in the French National Order of Merit for his services defending French nationals accused of crimes in American courts, and for his service to the French government as a criminal law advisor.
This morning Matthew Galluzzo, former Manhattan prosecutor, appeared on LA FM, a radio station based in Colombia, to discuss some aspects of the prosecution of Donald Trump in Manhattan. In English and Spanish.
Donald Trump: ¿puede llegar a la presidencia de Estados Unidos? | La FM
Now that Trump has been indicted in Manhattan (New York County) for alleged crimes relating to the falsification of business records, some experts have hypothesized that the judge overseeing the case will order a pre-trial gag order over the parties – including the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, and the famous defendant himself, ex-President Trump. This post discusses the legal issues surrounding a gag order and the practical implications of it in this case.
A gag order basically instructs a party to a litigation to refrain from speaking publicly about the case. A New York judge overseeing a criminal case has the power to issue a gag order over one or more of the parties to the case. Gag orders are relatively rare, however. They certainly are not done as a matter of routine. The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, after all, and courts are generally loath to abridge those rights. However, gag orders may be necessary to protect other valuable rights under the Constitution, such as the right to a fair trial (contained in the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights), as well as the all-important “true administration of justice”.
Sometimes defense attorneys ask courts to order prosecutors not to talk about their clients’ cases publicly for fear that they would prejudice any potential jurors. For example, the attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell – convicted in Manhattan federal court of assisting notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein – contended that the federal prosecutors had tainted potential jurors by hosting press conferences in which they laid out the facts of their case. Ultimately that application for a gag order was denied, but the federal judge did admonish the attorneys to adhere to the rules of professional conduct for lawyers, which generally prohibits attempts to unfairly influence juries (or potential juries) outside of the courtroom. After all, the paramount rule of trials was explained by Justice Holmes in 1907: “The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether private talk or public print.” Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).
Now that Donald Trump has been indicted in New York County (Manhattan) Supreme Court on felony charges relating to the alleged falsification of business records, one of the more interesting issues to consider is the possibility of selecting a jury to hear Mr. Trump’s case.
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.
On April 2, Matthew Galluzzo was quoted as a legal expert by Canadian national news as to whether Mr. Trump could receive a fair trial in Manhattan. The link to the article is available here.
On March 31, Matthew Galluzzo – a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor – appeared on NPR’s Morning Edition with host Sacha Pfeiffer to discuss the new Trump indictment in New York County. A link to his interview is available here.
Mr. Galluzzo, a criminal defense attorney and former New York City prosecutor, recently represented two individuals in separate federal grand jury investigations. The first individual received a grand jury subpoena in connection with an investigation into a fatal shooting. Mr. Galluzzo successfully persuaded federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York that the client had a basis to invoke the Fifth Amendment should he be called to testify, and prosecutors agreed to withdraw the subpoena. The second individual received a subpoena to testify about an investigation into several fatal drug overdoses in Westchester County potentially linked to the same drug dealer. Mr. Galluzzo negotiated on behalf of his client, and he was able to answer the prosecutor’s questions informally in his office with the protection of a proffer agreement, instead of under oath and before the grand jury. Both of these clients were relieved not to have to testify in the grand jury and were generally thrilled with the outcome of Mr. Galluzzo’s negotiations.
If you or a loved one receives a grand jury subpoena, you need to contact a criminal defense attorney immediately. This subpoena cannot be ignored, but can carry substantial risks for the person who receives it. In some cases, the person receiving the subpoena may be able to assert the Fifth Amendment. In other cases, it may be possible to negotiate immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony. In other cases, it may be possible to simply answer investigators’ questions without doing so under oath and before a grand jury. In that latter case, it is critical to only speak with an attorney’s assistance and after entering into a proffer agreement. Mr. Galluzzo has represented dozens of witnesses and cooperating witnesses over the years, and understands hos prosecutors think and build cases (as he himself is a former prosecutor). If you have received a grand jury subpoena from a prosecutor in the Southern or Eastern Districts of New York, you should strongly consider contacting him immediately.
Our client, a scholarship football player at Howard University, was arrested at LaGuardia Airport attempting to check his handgun for his travel home to Atlanta. He was charged with a felony in Queens criminal court – specifically, Criminal Possession of a Firearm in violation of Penal Law Section 265.01-b(1). Conviction for a felony would have had a huge number of consequences for the client, including possible time in prison, loss of his school scholarship, and others.
Though the client had a license to lawfully own and carry his firearm in his home state of Georgia, that right does not apply in New York. As such, his license was not, strictly speaking, a defense to the charges in New York. Nevertheless, Mr. Galluzzo successfully persuaded Queens prosecutors that the client had no malicious intent in bringing the firearm to New York, and that his possession of it in LaGuardia was attributable only to his mistaken assumption that his license permitted him to bring it to New York. Mr. Galluzzo further provided evidence of the client’s status as a scholarship student-athlete, his record of community service, and his good character. The prosecutors reviewed Mr. Galluzzo’s written submission and ultimately agreed to dismiss the felony and misdemeanor charges. The client was allowed to plead guilty to a non-criminal violation with a $120 fine, meaning that the client will have no public criminal record and can lawfully say that he has never been convicted of a crime.
Every years, hundreds of people are arrested in New York area airports for bringing otherwise-lawful firearms into the city. If you or a loved one have been arrested for that offense, you should strongly consider contacting Mr. Galluzzo. Mr. Galluzzo has successfully represented many people accused of having weapons at the airport with a strong record of success. As a former New York City prosecutor himself, he knows how to best persuade prosecutors to show leniency and decline to pursue felony charges against generally law-abiding people.
Firm News and Legal Information Center