U.S. v. Polizzi, No. 06-CR-22 (JBW).
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Writing for the Court | Jack B. Weinstein |
| Citation | 549 F.Supp.2d 308 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Peter POLIZZI, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | No. 06-CR-22 (JBW). |
| Decision Date | 01 April 2008 |
v.
Peter POLIZZI, Defendant.
Page 309
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 310
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 311
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 312
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 313
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 314
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 315
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 316
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 317
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.
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
Page 318
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
Page 319
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 Prejudicial.............................................................. 448
C....To continue reading
Request your trial
38 practice notes
-
U.S. v. C.R., No. 09–CR–155.
...criminal sanctions against child pornography, subject to constitutional limitations. See [792 F.Supp.2d 365] United States v. Polizzi, 549 F.Supp.2d 308, 378–86 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (historical discussion). By contrast with concern about sexual abuse is the acknowledged necessity of excluding fro......
-
United States v. Young, No. CR 17-0694 JB
...473 F.2d 1113, 1138, 1144 (D.C.Cir. 1972) (Bazelon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); United States v. Polizzi, 549 F. Supp. 2d 308, 402-50 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (Weinstein, S.J.)). Keeping such information from jurors, according to Young, "so denigrates their role that they become ......
-
United States v. Edwards, No. CR 16–3068 JB
...this 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).The Supreme Court has recognized that the jury trial right that the Sixth Amendment affords to defendants was understood......
-
United States v. Courtney, No. CR 11–2860 JB.
...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
38 cases
-
U.S. v. C.R., No. 09–CR–155.
...criminal sanctions against child pornography, subject to constitutional limitations. See [792 F.Supp.2d 365] United States v. Polizzi, 549 F.Supp.2d 308, 378–86 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (historical discussion). By contrast with concern about sexual abuse is the acknowledged necessity of excluding fro......
-
United States v. Young, No. CR 17-0694 JB
...473 F.2d 1113, 1138, 1144 (D.C.Cir. 1972) (Bazelon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); United States v. Polizzi, 549 F. Supp. 2d 308, 402-50 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (Weinstein, S.J.)). Keeping such information from jurors, according to Young, "so denigrates their role that they become ......
-
United States v. Edwards, No. CR 16–3068 JB
...this 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).The Supreme Court has recognized that the jury trial right that the Sixth Amendment affords to defendants was understood......
-
United States v. Courtney, No. CR 11–2860 JB.
...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