U.S. v. Polizzi
| Decision Date | 01 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-CR-22(JBW).,06-CR-22(JBW). |
| Citation | 545 F.Supp.2d 270 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Peter POLIZZI, Defendant. |
| Court | U.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., for Defendant Peter Polizzi.
MEMORANDUM & LEGAL INSANITY CHARGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ..............................................................271
A. Defendant .............................................................271
B. Jury Charge on Legal Insanity .........................................272
C. Trial .................................................................272
D. Jury Verdict ..........................................................273
E. Post-Verdict Proceedings ..............................................273
II. Legal Insanity Defense ....................................................273
A. Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act ...................................273
B. Government's Proposed Insanity Charge .................................274
C. Defendant's Proposed Insanity Charge ..................................275
D. Insanity Charge Given by the Court ....................................276
1. Definition of "Wrongfulness" ......................................276
2. Rationale .........................................................278
a. A "Public Morality" Charge Would Be Prejudicial and
Unnecessarily Vague .........................................279
b. Ewing Is Distinguishable ......................................280
c. Polizzi Did Not Directly Introduce Moral Justification ........280
III. Conclusion ................................................................280
I. Introduction
Defendant, Peter Polizzi, was charged with — and convicted after a jury trial of — twelve counts of receipt and eleven counts of possession of images of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §.§ 2252(a) (2) and 2252(a)(4)(B), see Superseding Indictment, Mar. 8, 2007, Docket Entry No. 35, after a search of his home's detached garage resulted in the discovery of over 5,000 digital images stored on his computers and hard drives. At trial, Polizzi pleaded the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity under the federal Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 ("IDRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 17. The jury rejected the defense. Familiarity with the facts is assumed. See memorandum and order on motions to dismiss and for a new trial and on sentencing, United States v. Polizzi, No. 06-22, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2008 WL 1886006 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2008).
The insanity defense was largely predicated on Polizzi's having himself been severely sexually abused as a child and the psychological aftereffects. The parties had considerable difficulty in suggesting the form of the jury charge under the unique circumstances of the case. See 18 U.S.C. § 17.
Defendant's background was positive. See Part II.A of Polizzi, ___ F.Supp.2d ___. He was brought to this country when he was a young teenager after a childhood in Sicilian poverty; had little formal education, yet, after teaching himself to play an instrument, led a popular local band; worked extremely long hours at menial labor as a boy, and then bought and built-up a successful restaurant; had a loving wife and five supportive lawfully engaged sons; lived in a fine home; was well respected in the community by the police, clergy and others; had no criminal record; viewed the charged pornography downloaded from the Internet alone in a double-locked room above his garage; and, upon his arrest, cooperated fully with the police, suggesting to them that whoever participated in producing these dreadful pornographic images should be prosecuted. His testimony as to the severe sexual abuse he had suffered while a child in Sicily was credible and moving.
At trial the only contested issue was Polizzi's affirmative defense of legal insanity. See 18 U.S.C. § 17. Polizzi admitted collecting child pornography and described at length how and why he began to do so. His testimony — accepted as truthful by the jury — was that severe childhood sexual abuse had caused him, as an adult, to develop what experts referred to as an obsessive-compulsive disorder ("OCD") and hoarding behavior as well as a post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). As a result of the trauma he re-experienced upon accidentally stumbling across child pornography on the Internet and seeing other children being sexually abused, he claimed he began to collect child pornography to turn over to law enforcement in a misguided attempt to "help the children." Until his arrest, however, Polizzi never told anyone about his collection.
The definition of legal insanity was critical. The parties' proposed jury instructions, and in particular their definitions of "wrongfulness," were sharply contrasting. The government requested that the court, based on a recent Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision, United States v. Ewing, 494 F.3d 607, 618 (7th Cir.2007), issue a jury charge defining "wrongfulness" under the IDRA to be "contrary to public morality, as well as contrary to law." Govt.'s Req. to Charge 29, Aug. 20, 2007, Docket Entry No. 59 (emphasis added); see Govt.'s Letter Objecting to Def.'s Req. to Charge 1-2, Sept. 5, 2007, Docket Entry No. 67; Govt.'s Mem. of Law in Support of Proposed Jury Req. No. 18: Aff. Defense — Insanity 8-11, Sept. 12, 2007, Docket Entry No. 75. Defendant opposed, arguing for a standard jury instruction based on 1 Leonard Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions — Criminal § 8.09 (2007), which does not specifically define "wrongfulness." Def.'s Req. to Charge 9-10, Sept. 5, 2007, Docket Entry No. 66; Def.'s Letter Br. on Aff. Defense of Insanity 1-2, Sept. 14, 2007, Docket Entry No. 76. The court denied both requests and issued its own instruction, defining "wrongfulness" as "unlawfulness." See Part II, infra, for reasons. No objection was taken to the court's formulation.
At trial, defendant's receipt and possession of the pornographic images and the fact that the images depicted minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct were not disputed.
To satisfy the IDRA, Polizzi had the burden of proving by "clear and convincing" evidence that he was legally insane when the offenses occurred in that he: 1) had a "severe mental disease or defect" at the time he downloaded the images over a period of some five years; and 2) as a result he had been "unable"to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts." 18 U.S.C. § 17. The statute reads in pertinent part as follows:
It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal Statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.
Mr. Polizzi was doing what he believed to be right. He could not appreciate that downloading pictures of the children was wrong. What is wrong, what Mr. Polizzi knows is wrong ... is child abuse.... Mr. Polizzi, in a wrong way maybe, but in his way because of his psychological trauma, is trying to figure out a way to stop child abuse.
Trial Tr. 1368; see id. at 782. Polizzi attempted to prove legal insanity through his own and expert testimony. The government rebutted defense contentions with its own expert who found no mental disease or defect. See Part II.B.6 of Polizzi, ___ F.Supp.2d ___.
The jury found Polizzi guilty on all counts. During jury deliberations, it was evident from its questions that it rather quickly decided the issue of guilt. Determining whether Polizzi had carried his burden of proving legal insanity took the jury several days during which jurors reviewed the exhibits concerning Polizzi's mental condition. Trial Tr. 1439.
The jury ultimately rejected" Polizzi's defense of legal insanity. It was justified in doing so. Despite defendant's mental problems, a jury could find that he was able to appreciate the nature and quality and the wrongfulness of his acts (i.e., the downloading and possessing images of child pornography). See 18 U.S.C. § 17. At the time he obtained and viewed the images, Polizzi testified, he believed he was not violating the law or morality. Once he was told his actions were illegal, he understood they were wrong. See Trial Tr. 1047, 1105 (); id. at 667 ( ).
After the jury was discharged, some members of the jury supported a sentence providing for mental health treatment rather than imprisonment. See id. at 1454-59. They wanted treatment and close supervision to prevent a recurrence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. Thomas
...by a preponderance of the evidence means very simply to prove that something is more likely than not so."); United States v. Polizzi, 545 F.Supp.2d 270, 278 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (noting that "clear and convincing evidence" is "higher than ‘more probable than not,’ but not as high as ‘beyond a re......
-
US v. Polouizzi
...contrasting language, the court issued its own charge on the insanity defense; there were no objections. United States v. Polizzi, 545 F.Supp.2d 270, 276-78 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (defining "wrongfulness" as "unlawfulness"); Polouizzi I, 549 F.Supp.2d at 330 (discussing legal insanity charge); Polo......
-
U.S. v. Polizzi
...on the issue were sharply contrasting. The court issued its own charge, to which there were no objections. See United States v. Polizzi 545 F.Supp.2d 270 (E.D.N.Y.2008). b. Mandatory Minimum Before, during, and after trial, defense counsel repeatedly sought to have the jury informed of the ......
- Eng'rs Joint Welfare Fund v. C. Destro Dev. Co.
-
§ 25.04 Definitions of "Insanity"
...of the insanity rule"). [83] United States v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606, 618 (2d Cir. 1966) (emphasis added); United States v. Polizzi, 545 F. Supp. 2d 270, 276 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) ("absolutes are almost impossible to prove when dealing with the subtle and complex operations of the human mind").[84......
-
§25.04 DEFINITIONS OF "INSANITY"
...of the insanity rule").[83] . United States v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606, 618 (2d Cir. 1966) (emphasis added); United States v. Polizzi, 545 F. Supp. 2d 270, 276 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) ("absolutes are almost impossible to prove when dealing with the subtle and complex operations of the human mind").[8......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...652 A.2d 1164 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995), 119 Pohlot, United States v., 827 F.2d 889 (3d Cir. 1987), 344 Polizzi, United States v., 545 F. Supp. 2d 270 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), 329 Pollard, United States v., 171 F. Supp. 474 (E.D. Mich. 1959), rev'd on other grounds, Pollard v. United States, 282 F.......