Posted on: November 12, 2024, 06:18h.
Last updated on: November 12, 2024, 06:18h.
The US Supreme Court Tuesday was grappling with the idea of what constitutes a “crime of violence.” That’s because a New York Mob bookie incarcerated for arranging the attempted murder of a rival claims his conviction should be quashed because his foiled plot did not involve physical force.
Salvatore “Fat Sal” Delligatti, an associate of the Genovese Crime Family, was sentenced to 25 years in 2018 for numerous crimes including racketeering and attempted murder.
Four years earlier, Delligatti arranged for Crips gang members to ambush and kill a potential threat to his illegal sports betting business, providing them with a .38 revolver and a getaway car.
But his phone was being tapped, which allowed police to intervene. The would-be assassins were intercepted just blocks away from their intended target’s address in Queens.
Is Murder Always Violent?
To be clear, Delligatti is not contesting the racketeering or attempted murder convictions – just the related charge of “possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence,” which happened to get him an additional five years in the slammer.
Neither is Delligatti or his lawyer arguing that his crime was not violent. They simply want to demonstrate that murder doesn’t always have to involve violence, which could allow for the attempted murder charge to be uncoupled from the firearm charge.
The plaintiff’s lawyer, Allon Kedem, argued Tuesday that a crime like murder committed through inaction cannot be deemed a “crime of violence.”
Using physical force against another requires taking some step to bring force into contact with the victim,” Kedem said. “That can happen directly, as with a kick or punch, or indirectly, such as giving a gentle push to someone teetering on the edge of a cliff. But it does not involve an offense that can be committed by pure omission, such as failing to render aid to someone suffering from a natural disorder.”
Kedem contends that there are many crimes that are morally reprehensible but do not involve violence, such as failing to provide someone with food or crucial medical care resulting in injury or death.
Wild Hypotheticals
Some justices were intrigued by the idea, which they explored by concocting wild hypotheticals like lifeguards refusing to save drowning kids they “disliked” to old ladies falling through open manholes. Others were more skeptical.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that it was counterintuitive to suggest murder was not a crime of violence.
Would you argue that your client is not the kind of armed career criminal that Congress was trying to get at when they enacted this statute?” Justice Samuel Alito asked Kedem pointedly.
It’s hoped the Supreme Court’s ultimate determination will offer guidance to federal lower courts that have been uncertain about applying the “possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence” charge.
A decision is expected by summer 2025.
