US v. Polouizzi
| Decision Date | 11 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-CR-22 (JBW).,06-CR-22 (JBW). |
| Citation | 687 F. Supp.2d 133 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Peter POLOUIZZI, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Allen Lee Bode, United States Attorneys Office, Central Islip, NY, Andrea Goldbarg, United States Attorneys Office, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING NEW TRIAL (POLOUIZZI V)
Table of Contents
I. Introduction........................................................................ 137
II. Facts and Procedural History ...................................................... 138
A. Defendant and the Crime......................................................... 138
1. Childhood Sexual Abuse in Sicily............................................. 138
2. Resulting Psychological Trauma............................................... 140
B. Arrest and Indictment .......................................................... 140
1. Execution of Warrant......................................................... 140
2. Twenty-Three Count Indictment................................................ 142
C. Trial Proceedings............................................................... 142
1. Images....................................................................... 142
2. Testimony ................................................................... 143
a) Polizzi's Testimony....................................................... 143
b) Dr. Lisa Cohen............................................................ 145
c) Dr. Eric Goldsmith........................................................ 146
d) Dr. Naftali Garcia Berrill........_....................................... 148
3. Jury Charge ................................................................. 150
a) Written Charge Sheet...................................................... 150
b) Insanity Defense.......................................................... 152
c) Mandatory Minimum Sentence ............................................... 152
D. Jury Verdict and Colloquy....................................................... 152
1. Jury Verdict................................................................. 152
2. Jurors Opposed To Incarceration ............................................. 152
E. Post-Trial Proceedings.......................................................... 155
1. First Grant of New Trial Based on Trial Court's Perception of Error.......... 155
2. Sentencing on Counts Fourteen through Twenty-Four............................ 155
F. Appeal.......................................................................... 155
G. Proceedings on Remand........................................................... 156
III. Second Grant of New Trial.......................................................... 157
A Standard....................................................................... 157
B. Preliminary Issue.............................................................. 158
C. Overindictment................................................................. 159
1. No Prejudice From Evidence Admitted......................................... 159
2. Prejudice From Overbreadth of Charges Tried ................................ 160
D. Timeliness..................................................................... 164
1. "Seven-Day" Rule............................................................ 164
2. Excusable Neglect........................................................... 165
3. Supplemental Order.......................................................... 167
IV. Informing New Jury of Mandatory Minimum Sentence ................................... 167
A The Sixth Amendment^History and Context........................................... 167
1. American Practice Circa 1791 ........................................... 172
2. British Practice Circa 1791........................ .................... 176
a) Ryder Papers.................................................................. 176
b) Old Bailey Session Papers .................................................... 180
B. Caselaw.......................................................................... 183
1. Jury's Historic Sentencing Role............................................... 184
2. Keeping Jury in the Dark Incompatible with Historic Jury Role................. 186
3. Jury's Power to Moderate Harsh Effects of Law................................. 188
C. Attempts to Restrict Sixth Amendment Jury Discretion............................. 190
1. Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century............................................. 190
2. Contemporary.................................................................. 195
D. Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Jury Knowledge.................................. 197
1. Thomas and Pabon-Cruz Premises.............................. 197
a) Thomas .......................................................... 197 b) Pabon-Cruz....................................................... 199 c) Post-Boofcer, Pabon-Cruz, Thomas and Shannon Require Reinterpretation........................................................ 201 d) Pabon-Cruz Applied to Polizzi.................................... 202 2. Gilliam's, Language Represents Current General Role of Informed Jury as Representative of Community Mores................................. 202 3. In Instant Case, Informing the Jury of the Applicable Penalty Was Necessary Because of the Defendant's Unusual Background and the Unknown Punishment.................................................... 204 E. Variability of Results Depending Upon Informed & Non-Informed Jurors ......................................................................... 204 F. Summary: Informing Jury in Present Case.......................................... 207 G. Special Circumstances............................................................ 208 V. Conclusion.......................................................................... 209
The defendant—a successful, middle-aged business and family man with no criminal record—was tried and convicted of twelve counts of receiving and eleven counts of possessing child pornography in the privacy of his locked garage. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) (receipt); 2252(a)(4)(B) (possession). See also United States v. Polizzi (Polouizzi I), 549 F.Supp.2d 308, 319 (E.D.N.Y.2008). The only defense proffered was insanity, predicated largely on repeated rapes by a relative, a friend of the family, the police, and other sexual abuse Polizzi suffered as a preteen boy in rural Sicily. See 18 U.S.C. § 17. The jury found him guilty on all counts.
A new trial was granted by the trial court on the receipt counts, on the ground that the judge had erred in failing to recognize, and to exercise, his discretion to inform the jury of the mandatory five-year minimum sentence required by the receipt counts, see 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1), depriving the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right, when some jurors believed that medical treatment rather than long incarceration was required, and that it would be permitted on a finding of guilt. See Polouizzi I, 549 F.Supp.2d at 443-50.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. United States v. Polouizzi (Polouizzi II), 564 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2009). It sharply reduced the number of crimes that could be charged in the indictment, from twenty-three to five, and remanded the case for further action by the trial court in accordance with the appellate opinion. Id. at 153-59.
Defendant moved for a new trial. The government opposed.
To expedite an appeal, this court promptly issued two preliminary memoranda, indicating that this more extensive memorandum, Polouzzi V, would follow. See United States v. Polizzi (Polouizzi III), 257 F.R.D. 33 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (Mem. on Post-Appellate Proceedings); United States v. Polizzi (Polouizzi IV), 262 F.R.D. 160 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (Abbreviated Mem. & Order Granting New Trial). In view of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Polouizzi II, sharply reducing the scope of the indictment, the trial court in Polouizzi III declared that a new trial would be required. 257 F.R.D. at 36-38. In Polouizzi IV, the trial court noted that it would exercise its discretion on retrial to inform the jury of the five-year mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration required by a conviction for receipt of child pornography through the Internet. Polouizzi IV, 262 F.R.D. at 161-62.
The reduction in charges by Polouizzi II has substantially changed the dynamics of a jury's approach to the defendant's insanity defense. "LJetting the guilty verdict stand would be a manifest injustice." United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2001).
The defendant's background is detailed in the district court's prior order. See Polouizzi I, 549 F.Supp.2d at 320, 323-26. For the convenience of the reader, much of the material in Polouizzi I, II, III, and IV is incorporated in the present comprehensive document, Polouizzi V.
The defendant, Peter Polizzi, is fifty-six years old. He was brought to this country when he was a young teenager after suffering serious sexual abuse as a child in rural Sicily. Without funds, and with only a few years of schooling, he worked assiduously at a pizzeria in Queens, ultimately buying it and turning it into what he and his family now operate as a valuable and well-known restaurant. Trial Tr. 169. He taught himself to play the guitar,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Baker
...limiting the role of jurors in United States v. Battiste, 24 F. Cas. 1042 (C.C.D. Mass. 1835). See United States v. Polouizzi, 687 F.Supp.2d 133, 190 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (Weinstein, J.)(noting that the first of "[t]wo major Supreme Court Justices' opinions in the nineteenth century ... restrict......
-
United States v. Courtney
...circuit in Massachusetts, rendered the first major American court opinion limiting the role of juries ...”); United States v. Polouizzi, 687 F.Supp.2d 133, 190 (E.D.N.Y.2010), vacated,393 Fed.Appx. 784 (2d Cir.2010)(unpublished)(noting that the first of “[t]wo major Supreme Court Justices' ......
-
United States v. Young
...explicitly limiting the role of jurors in United States v. Battiste, 24 F. Cas. 1042 (C.C.D. Mass. 1835). See United States v. Polouizzi, 687 F. Supp. 2d 133, 190 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (noting that the first of "[t]wo major Supreme Court Justices' opinions in the nineteenth century ... restrictin......
-
US v. POLOUIZZI
...and possession of child pornography having been set aside. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2); 2252(a)(4)(B); United States v. Polouizzi (Polouizzi V), 687 F.Supp.2d 133, 138-39 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (Am. Mem. & Order Granting New Trial). His bail conditions include electronic monitoring, mandated by Sec......