Court upholds extended sentencing for 'Fat Sal' in conspiracy to commit murder case
Hear Ye, Hear Ye! The Supreme Court's Ruling on "Fat Sal"
The Supreme Court made a splash on Friday, taking a stand in favor of federal prosecutors who wanted to slap extra prison time on a Genovese family associate, better known in the concrete jungle of New York as "Fat Sal." This beloved character was found guilty of a sinister murder-for-hire scheme.
Justice Clarence Thomas, ever the wordsmith, penned the opinion for a motivated seven-justice bench. On the opposing end, Justice Neil Gorsuch, armed with a fiery dissent, found penspiration courtesy of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Salvatore Delligatti, a man not afraid to prey on the backs of the innocent, challenged the five years added to his sentence, which was slapped on him in 2018 after he was caught red-handed with attempted murder and other illicit activities. Federal law dictates that mandatory additional jail time is a must if a defendant whips out a gun for a "crime of violence."
However, the rotund enforcer claimed he never unleashed the physical force necessary to meet the crime of violence's definition. Instead, Delligatti argued, he hired Crips associates through a middleman to commit a hit and handed them a .38 revolver — a bang-up router indeed, but not enough to win the physical force argument.
The majority wasn't convinced.
"When someone intentionally causes harm, they're wielding bodily force upon another," Thomas wrote. "The premeditated infliction of injury or death, whether by active engagement or passive inaction, is intrinsically linked to the use of physical force."
In his dissent, Gorsuch drew a comparison to a negligent lifeguard allowing a swimmer to drown.
"The lifeguard sits, twisted 'stache in hand, as the swimmer slips beneath the waves," Gorsuch wrote. "The procrastinating lifeguard is a scoundrel, potentially culpable for a gravitas crime in many jurisdictions. But, the court posits, is this lifeguard's dereliction of duty also a 'crime of violence' involving the exercise of 'physical force against the person or property of another'? I'm not so convinced."
The "crime of violence" penalty in similar circumstances has divided federal appeals courts, which is precisely why the Justice Department — despite standing against Delligatti's arguments — pleaded with the Supreme Court to hear his appeal and bring some much-needed clarity to the foggy judicial waters. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Delligatti and upheld his conviction.
Our man "Fat Sal" had marked local pressurecooker Joseph Bonelli, a self-proclaimed bully who was giving the gas station stops visited by Delligatti and his cronies a real run for their money. The family also suspected that Bonelli was snitching on bookies in the area, making him a potential threat to the family's gambling operation.
Cops managed to intercept the Crips associates before they could carry out the cruel deed. Delligatti copped to multiple offenses and was sentenced to 25 years behind bars — five years of which were destined for firearm-related charges.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has set stricter boundaries for prosecutors seeking enhanced prison sentences for "crime of violence" offenses. In Delligatti's appeal, a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Virginia defendant who was convicted of the gun charge based on the simple act of pointing a gun during an attempted robbery.
- Salvatore Delligatti, like a lifeguard allowing a swimmer to drown, argued against the physical force argument in his case, drawing a comparison with Justice Gorsuch's dissent.
- The Supreme Court's ruling on "Fat Sal," echoing the dissent by Justice Gorsuch, questioned the classification of a negligent action as a 'crime of violence' involving the exercise of 'physical force,' as in the case of a lifeguard who fails to prevent a drowning.
- The verdict on Fat Sal's extended sentence, a Genovese family associate, has implications in the ongoing debate about the 'crime of violence' penalty, with the Supreme Court's decision potentially shedding light on the vague boundaries for prosecutors seeking enhanced prison sentences.
