I've had to rely on some pretty creative sentencing arguments from time to time, but here is one that never occurred to me: the government sought to embarass my client, so, please, judge, dismuss the case before you even reach the issue of how much time my client should serve.
Call it the case of the tender-hearted don.
Victor Riccitelli faces sentencing in New Haven, Connecticut, for his role in the Gambino crime family, once headed by John Gotti. Riccitelli has been convicted of racketeering and awaits sentencing.
As part of his sentencing pitch, Riccitelli signed an affidavit saying that when he talked about the Mafia he was just repeating what he read in a book. Federal prosecutors responded with a detailed motion, and a transcript of a wire. On the wire, Riccitelli tells a strip club owner about how the mob works, including information about induction ceremonies and the hierarchy of the Gambino family. It turns out the strip club owner was working with the feds.
Here is the creative part.
Riccitelli's lawyer, Jonathan Einhorn, has filed a motion to dismiss, contending prosecutorial misconduct. "The government's conduct" in filing a motion detailing just how talkative Riccitelli had been "was for the sole purpose of embarassing the defendant and obtaining an outlet for the public disclosure of otherwise nonpublic material."
Huh? Sounded like straightforward impeachment to me. As for the, uh, "proprietary" information about mob operations disclosed, I suspect embarassment is the least of Riccitelli's problems. So much for omerta.
