U.S. v. Polizzi

Decision Date01 April 2008
Docket NumberNo. 06-CR-22 (JBW).,06-CR-22 (JBW).
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, v. Peter POLIZZI, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Benton J. Campbell, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, by Allen Lee Bode, for the Government.

Mitchell J. Dinnerstein, Esq., Thomas Eddy, on the Brief, for Defendant Peter Polizzi.

MEMORANDUM, ORDER & JUDGMENT

JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge:

                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                 I. Introduction........................................................................... 319
                  A. Constitutionality of Statute....................................................... 320
                  B. Unconstitutional Denial of Jury's Broad Power to Refuse Conviction................. 322
                 II. Facts................................................................................. 323
                  A. Defendant and the Crime........................................................... 323
                   1. Childhood Sexual Abuse in Sicily.............................................. 324
                   2. Resulting Psychological Trauma................................................ 325
                  B. Procedure......................................................................... 326
                   1. Investigation ................................................................ 326
                   2. Arrest........................................................................ 327
                   3. Indictment.................................................................... 329
                   4. Motion to Dismiss Indictment................................................... 329
                   5. Jury Charge.................................................................... 330
                    a. Affirmative Defense of Insanity............................................ 330
                    b. Mandatory Minimum Sentence................................................. 330
                   6. Trial.......................................................................... 331
                    a. Polizzi's Testimony........................................................ 332
                    b. Dr. Lisa Cohen............................................................. 333
                    c. Dr. Eric Goldsmith ........................................................ 334
                    d. Dr. N.G. Berrill .......................................................... 337
                   7. Jury Verdict................................................................... 339
                   8. Post-Verdict Proceedings....................................................... 339
                III. Constitutional Objections to the Statute .............................................. 341
                  A. Fundamental Problem with Passive Receiving and Possessing Without Evil
                   Intent as Charged Under Statute................................................... 341
                
                   1. Generally...................................................................... 341
                   2. Definitions ................................................................... 343
                   3. Operative Elements of the Receipt and Possession Statutes...................... 345
                   4. X-Citement Video .............................................................. 349
                   5. X-Citement Video Does Not Control.............................................. 351
                   6. Overbreadth.................................................................... 353
                   7. Precedent...................................................................... 354
                    a. Defining "Receipt" and "Possession"........................................ 355
                    b. Inferring Intent from Non-Operative Facts.................................. 357
                   8. Remedy......................................................................... 358
                  B. Cruel and Unusual Punishment....................................................... 358
                   1. Is the Punishment Cruel?........................................................ 359
                   2. Is the Punishment Unusual?...................................................... 360
                  C. Disproportionate Penalty .......................................................... 361
                   1. Proportionality Analysis....................................................... 361
                   2. Is Five Years Constitutionally Disproportional?................................ 364
                    a. The Nature of Polizzi's Crimes and the Contemplated Penalty................ 364
                     i. Severity of Offenses ................................................ 364
                     ii. Harm Caused by the Offenses.......................................... 365
                     iii. Severity of Punishment............................................... 366
                     iv. Polizzi's Culpability................................................ 368
                    b. Punishment for Other Offenses in This Jurisdiction ........................ 369
                    c. Punishment for Similar Offenses in Other Jurisdictions..................... 370
                  D. Irrationality...................................................................... 372
                   1. Generally...................................................................... 372
                   2. Federal Laws Criminalizing Receiving or Possessing Child Pornography
                    Are Not so Irrational so as to Violate the Constitution....................... 374
                  E. Lenity............................................................................. 377
                  F. Free Speech........................................................................ 378
                   1. History of Pornography.....\................................................... 378
                   2. First Amendment Exceptions..................................................... 380
                    a. Obscenity.................................................................. 380
                    b. Sexually Oriented Expression............................................... 383
                    c. Child Pornography.......................................................... 384
                  G. Search and Seizure................................................................. 386
                   1. Summary of Relevant Facts...................................................... 386
                   2. Fourth Amendment .............................................................. 387
                   3. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy.............................................. 388
                   4. Third-Party and Envelope-Content Doctrine...................................... 390
                   5. Electronic Communication Privacy Act........................................... 392
                   6. Probable Cause for Search of Home.............................................. 394
                   7. Policy Considerations.......................................................... 396
                  H. Separation of Powers............................................................... 397
                   1. Mandatory Minimums Historically and Today...................................... 398
                   2. The Judiciary's Power Under Article III ....................................... 399
                   3. Congress Has the Power to Enact Mandatory Minimums............................. 400
                   4. Analysis of the Statute......................'................................. 401
                  I. Jury Finding of Predicate Facts.................................................... 402
                 IV. Unconstitutional Refusal to Inform Jury of Mandatory Minimum Incarceration ............ 404
                  A. History and Context of Sixth Amendment............................................. 405
                   1. Goebel......................................................................... 408
                   2. Ryder Papers................................................................... 413
                   3. Old Bailey Session Papers...................................................... 417
                  B. Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Judicial Attempts to Restrict Sixth
                   Amendment Jury Discretion......................................................... 420
                  C. Some Modern Attempts to Eliminate Jury Power Violate the Constitution.............. 424
                  D. Recent Supreme Court Caselaw Rejects Attempts to Limit Jury's Power................ 426
                   1. Supreme Court Places a High Value on the Jury's Historic Sentencing Role....... 427
                
                   2. Supreme Court Invalidation of Laws and Practice Incompatible with
                    Historic Jury Role............................................................ 428
                   3. Sentencing Cases Suggest that the Supreme Court Recognizes the Jury's
                    Power to Moderate the Law's Harsh Effects..................................... 431
                  E. Requirement of Jury Knowledge in View of the Unusual Situation, Statute and
                   Punishment of Which the Jury Was Not Aware....................................... 433
                   1. Thomas and Pabon-Cruz Are Premised upon a Now Inappropriate
                     Attempt to Curtail Jury Powers.............................................. 433
                    a. Thomas................................................................... 433
                    b. Pabon-Cruz............................................................... 435
                      i. Procedural History................................................. 435
                      ii. Post-Soofcer, Pabon-Cruz, Thomas and Shannon Require
                       Reinterpretation ................................................. 437
                   2. Gilliam Language Represents the Current General Role of the Informed
                     Jury as Representative of Community Mores .................................. 438
                   3. In Polizzi's Case, Informing the Jury of the Applicable Penalty Was
                     Necessary Because of the Defendant's Unusual Background and the
                     Unknown Punishment.......................................................... 440
                  F. Variability of Results Depending Upon the Informed & Non-Informed Juror........ 440
                  G. Conclusion......................................................................... 443
                 V. Defendant's Motion to Inform the Jury of Mandatory Minimum Should Have Been
                Granted.........................................................:..................... 443
                  A. Defendant's Rule 33 Motion Should Be Granted....................................... 446
                  B. Error Was
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • U.S. v. Handy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • August 4, 2008
    ...a culpable state of mind, the defendant's Guideline calculation must be predicated upon culpability. See, e.g., United States v. Polizzi, 549 F.Supp.2d 308, 349-53 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (citing authorities on mens rea); United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie, 825 F.Supp. 485, 489-527 (E.D.N.Y.1993) (sa......
  • United States v. Baker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • October 25, 2018
    ...fundamental power of the jury -- and the right of the accused -- has been termed the power to nullify." United States v. Polizzi, 549 F.Supp.2d 308, 405 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (Weinstein, J.)(internal quotations omitted).The Supreme Court has recognized that the jury trial right that the Sixth Ame......
  • U.S. v. Arzberger
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 31, 2008
    ...102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989). Nevertheless, "the Framers did not intend for the three branches to remain autonomous." United States v. Polizzi, 549 F.Supp.2d 308, 399 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (citing Mistretta, 488 U.S. at 379, 109 S.Ct. 647). Thus, there are numerous areas in which the responsibilities of......
  • United States v. Courtney
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • May 21, 2013
    ...United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d at 1138–1144 (Bazelon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); United States v. Polizzi, 549 F.Supp.2d 308, 402–450 (E.D.N.Y.2008), vacated and remanded sub nom., United States v. Polouizzi, 564 F.3d 142 (2d Cir.2009); United States v. Datcher, 8......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT