United States v. Ronald Galati
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22457
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 30, 2013 two masked gunmen shot Andrew Tuono outside his Atlantic City home; Tuono was wounded in the hand, pelvis, and lower back. The gunmen were arrested and said they had been hired by Ronald Galati.
- A federal indictment charged Galati (and co-defendant Jerome Johnson) with soliciting murder-for-hire (18 U.S.C. § 1958), aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)), and conspiring to commit those offenses (18 U.S.C. §§ 924(o), 1958).
- At trial codefendants and the gunmen (who had pleaded guilty) testified that Galati provided Tuono’s location and arranged payment; Johnson drove the shooters to Atlantic City after a call from Galati.
- The jury convicted Galati on all counts, including aiding and abetting a firearm discharge during a crime of violence and conspiracy under § 924(o).
- On appeal Galati challenged whether a § 1958 murder-for-hire offense qualifies as a "crime of violence" for purposes of § 924(c), and argued the § 924(c) residual clause was unconstitutionally vague post-Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Galati) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 1958 murder-for-hire violation is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)’s elements clause | § 1958 does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, so it is not a crime of violence | Jury findings (personal injury and discharge of a firearm) show that the offense, as committed, involved the use of physical force and therefore qualifies | Court held that given the jury’s findings (firearm discharge and resulting personal injury), Galati committed a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) |
| Whether the § 924(c) residual clause must be invalidated under Johnson v. United States | Residual clause is void for vagueness post-Johnson, so conviction cannot rest on it | Government argued the conviction can be sustained under the elements clause based on the jury’s factual findings | Court declined to reach the residual-clause challenge because the elements-clause analysis (based on jury findings) sufficed to affirm convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated a vague residual clause defining "violent felony")
- United States v. Saada, 212 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2000) (plain-error review where defendant failed to preserve objection)
- United States v. Lake, 150 F.3d 269 (3d Cir. 1998) (government need not have charged or convicted a predicate offense contemporaneously for § 924(c) prosecution to rely on it)