Articles Posted in News & Media

Published on:

The case of Jamill Jones and whether he should be charged with homicide.

Recently, an unfortunate tragedy occurred in Queens resulting in a man’s death. A tourist from Florida named Sandor Szabo requested an Uber to take him from a family member’s wedding. In an apparently intoxicated effort to find his Uber, Mr. Szabo banged on several nearby cars with his fists. He eventually banged on the car belonging to Jamill Jones, an assistant coach for the Wake Forest University men’s basketball team. Mr. Jones got out of his car and punched Szabo one time in the face. Szabo fell to the ground and hit his head on the pavement. Jones drove away. Szabo was taken to the hospital and later died from the injury. See “Wake Forest coach could face murder charges,” NY Post, August 10, 2018.

Jones was identified and surrendered himself to police. As of yet, he has only been charged with a misdemeanor assault in violation of Penal Law Section 120.00 (Assault in the Third Degree, to be precise). That charge makes it a crime, punishable by up to one year in prison, to intentionally cause physical injury to another person. This is a typical charge for a single punch to the face. The fact that Mr. Szabo tragically died, however, makes the situation more complicated from a legal perspective. The New York Post article suggests that Mr. Jones could face murder charges, but that is perhaps imprecise or incorrect. Murder charges (such as the most common charge of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of Penal Law Section 125.25) would require a showing that Jones not only killed Szabo, but that he intended to kill Szabo. That seems unlikely given that he only punched Szabo once.

Published on:

The New York District Attorney’s Office recently announced that a Manhattan grand jury has indicted Harvey Weinstein for additional sexual assault charges relating to a third complainant. Specifically, Mr. Weinstein is facing an additional charge of Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree (Penal Law Section 130.50). Mr. Weinstein was already facing a charge of Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree based upon the allegation that he had forced a different woman to perform oral sex upon him against her will, and a separate count of Rape in the First Degree for allegedly raping a second complainant. Interestingly, he is also now facing two counts of Predatory Sexual Assault (Penal Law Section 130.95). These new charges significantly alter the forecast for Mr. Weinstein and seriously hamper his defense for tactical reasons discussed below.

Predatory Sexual Assault charges are very serious Class A-II felonies. They carry mandatory minimum prison sentences of ten years in jail, and a conviction for this crime carries a mandatory maximum sentence of life in prison. (Thus, for example, a person sentenced to an indeterminate prison sentence of ten years to life would be eligible for parole after roughly ten years, and if granted parole would then be on parole for the rest of his life.) These charges can apply in a variety of circumstances, but here, they have been applied because he is accused of committing the crimes of Rape in the First Degree or Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree against multiple people. See Penal Law Section 130.95(2). Basically, Mr. Weinstein would be convicted of this charge if it is proven that he in fact sexually assaulted more than one of the complainants. (There are two Predatory Sexual Assault counts that presumably apply to different combinations of complainants in this matter).

These charges have an important practical effect on the case (notwithstanding these potential penalties). Specifically, in order to get convictions on these charges, the prosecutor would now have to prove at trial that Weinstein assaulted more than one of the three current complainants in the case. It might at first seem that the prosecutors have made their jobs more difficult by adding these charges, but in actuality, this new evidentiary necessity thwarts an anticipated defense strategy for trial severance.

Published on:

Galluzzo & Arnone recently earned an excellent result for our client in Brooklyn federal court (the Eastern District of New York). Our client was originally arrested at JFK Airport in 1990 and charged with lying to a U.S. Customs agent about a significant amount of cash that he had in his possession at the airport. Federal prosecutors indicted him for two criminal charges related to this deception, in violation of 31 USC 1536(b) and 18 USC 1001. However, rather than return to court and defend himself, he returned to his home country and remained there for the next 28 years (note: he was not our client in 1990). Later, in 2018, he attempted to come back to the United States to visit his family but was arrested at the airport pursuant to a 1990 warrant for failing to appear in the Brooklyn federal court as required.

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 Galluzzo & Arnone 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.

Published on:

Understanding the Weinstein indictment and the next steps

According to numerous reports, Harvey Weinstein has been indicted on charges of Rape in the First Degree, Rape in the Third Degree, and Criminal Sexual Act in the First and Third Degrees. The first-degree charges are Class B violent felonies, meaning that they are punishable by a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 25 years in prison. Rape in the First Degree (Penal Law Section 130.35) applies to cases in which defendants allegedly use forcible compulsion (physical force or the threat of physical force or harm) to engage in non-consensual vaginal intercourse. Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree (Penal Law Section 130.50) applies to cases in which the defendants have allegedly used forcible compulsion to non-consensually penetrate mouths or anuses with their penises. (Thus, the distinction between “Rape” and “Criminal Sexual Act” under New York criminal law is the orifice being penetrated.) The third-degree varieties of these charges most commonly are applied in situations where a person is “incapable of consent,” meaning physically helpless (i.e. asleep or intoxicated). These third-degree charges are Class E felonies without mandatory minimum prison sentences.

It should come as no surprise that Weinstein was indicted given that he was arrested and preliminarily charged with these same crimes. Indeed, an indictment by the grand jury was basically a sure thing once the decision to arrest Weinstein was made. Weinstein could have testified before the grand jury in his own defense but that would have been a tactical mistake. A grand jury presentation in a case like this normally involves a prosecutor simply calling the complainant to testify under oath before the grand jurors about the crime. A defendant being indicted (for any crime, not just rape and sexual assault) does not get to listen to the witnesses testifying against him in the grand jury, nor does his attorney have the right to cross-examine those witnesses or make arguments to the grand jury. However, by testifying before the grand jury, Weinstein would have subjected himself to being cross-examined by a prosecutor under oath. That decision would have locked him into a version of events that he could not later modify or correct for trial. Equally problematically, it would have given the prosecutor an opportunity to hear Weinstein’s trial testimony prior to trial. This would have afforded the prosecutor months (or maybe even years) to prepare a scathing cross-examination for trial after having a “practice round” with him in the grand jury. Given that the odds of prevailing at the grand jury are normally terrible for a defendant – and probably especially so for Weinstein given the publicity surrounding his situation – there was realistically very little for Weinstein to gain from testifying before the grand jury. Most defendants understandably decline to do so.

Published on:

On June 15, after over thirty hours of deliberations and several requests for read back of testimony, the Cosby jury indicated that it was deadlocked. Matthew Galluzzo, a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor, tweeted the night before that he expected the jury to hang (meaning, to be deadlocked). The judge told the jury to continue deliberating (this is called "giving an Allen charge") and denied a defense motion for a mistrial as being premature. However, Mr. Galluzzo expects the jury to be unable to reach a verdict.

In an American criminal case, the jury's decision as to a particular charge must be unanimous, meaning that all twelve jurors must agree as to the verdict (guilty or not guilty) for a specific charge. A jury can convict unanimously on some charges and acquit unanimously on other charges in the same trial (and that happens quite frequently). A jury indicates to the court and judge that it has reached a verdict by sending out a written note that they have reached a verdict, and the jury emerges to announce the verdict in the courtroom.

Sometimes, as is the case in Cosby's trial, a jury sends out a note indicating that the jury cannot agree as to a particular charge (or any charges). Typically, a judge will then tell the jury that they should continue to deliberate. There is a very specific text that judges are usually required to read back to their deadlocked juries, and this text is typically referred to as an "Allen charge" (based upon a Supreme Court case with that name). An Allen charge is meant to encourage the jury to continue to try to reach a unanimous verdict, and reminds the jurors of the importance of arriving at a conclusion in light of the interests of the parties and the time and resources already spent trying the case.

Published on:

On June 14, an article in the Washington Post announced that special prosecutor Robert Mueller was investigating whether President Trump had obstructed justice by taking steps to impede the FBI's investigation into possible collusion by his campaign with Russian intelligence agents. Matthew Galluzzo appeared as a legal commentator on Fox 5 News New York to discuss this announcement.

The link is available here:

Report: Special counsel investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice

Published on:

On Jan. 29, 2017, Eric Arnone was quoted in the New York Times regarding former colleague Justice Ann M. Donnelly, the Federal Judge who ordered a temporary stay of President Trump's recent "Travel Ban" executive order. Trump's order has, in practice, targeted and affected people of Muslim decent.

The New York Times sought Arnone's comment as he formerly worked as a colleague of Justice Donnelly's at the New York County District Attorney's Office in the mid-2000's. Describing Judge Donnelly as having a "great reputation for being a fair and diligent prosecutor," Arnone was quoted alongside another former colleague Linda Fairstein and current District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., both who had great things to say about the jurist.

Arnone applauded the jurist – one who many look to as a hero – for her block of the Executive Order: “Today, Judge Donnelly stated in unequivocal terms that this administration — one with no apparent historical and constitutional rudder — will not go unchecked or unbalanced."

Published on:

Galluzzo & Arnone is now on Instagram! Follow the adventures of our attorneys and staff as they fight for their clients in state and federal court (and relax after hours).

The Instagram handle is "newyorkdefenselawyers" and we will be updating frequently.

Click below to see and learn more about us:

Published on:

G&A defense attorney Matthew Galluzzo recently earned a stunning trial acquittal in a federal sexual abuse case that had been extensively covered in the press. The client, charged with one count each of sexual abuse on an airplane (18 U.S.C. 2244(b)) and assault on an airplane (18 U.S.C. 113(a)(5)), went to trial in Brooklyn federal court (the Eastern District of New York) before Judge Pamela Chen. The jury deliberated about a day and acquitted the client of all charges, accepting his defense that his touching of the complainant had been an involuntary act committed while asleep. Five eyewitnesses testified for the prosecution.

If you or a loved one have been accused of a sex crime, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced criminal defense attorneys at Galluzzo & Arnone. In particular, Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor and widely recognized expert on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of rape and sexual assault charges.

Some articles about the case from the press:

Published on:

Matthew Galluzzo, a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor, recently appeared on MSNBC to talk about whether the women currently accusing Donald Trump of sexual assault should be discredited on account of the delay in their reporting. The link is available here:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/why-sex-assault-victims-sometimes-delay-reporting-787086915704