GALATI v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 1:2019cv00222 - Document 7 (D.N.J. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 11/24/2020. (tf, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GALATI v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Doc. 7 Case 1:19-cv-00222-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/24/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 442 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW J ERSEY RONALD GALATI, Hon. J oseph H. Rodriguez : Petitioner, Civil No. 19-222 : v. OPINION : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Respondent. : This m atter com es before the Court upon the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Petitioner, Mr. Ronald Galati. [Dkt. No. 1.] The Court has reviewed the subm issions of the parties and considered the m otion on the papers in accordance with F EDERAL R ULE OF CIVIL P ROCEDURE 78. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s m otion [Dkt. No. 1] will be denied. Backgro u n d The Court m akes no findings as to the veracity of Petitioner’s allegations. The following facts are taken from the Motion [Dkt. No. 1,] and are accepted for purposes of this m atter: [Mr.] Ronald Galati was charged in the District of New J ersey with one count of causing another to travel in interstate com m erce, and using facilities of such com m erce, in furtherance of m urder for hire (in violation of 18 U.S. Code§ 1958); one count of conspiring to do the sam e (in violation of U.S. Code § 1958); one count of aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm during a crim e of violence and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924); and one count of conspiring to do the sam e in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924). Mr. Galati entered a not guilty plea and proceeded to trial. On Septem ber 30 , 20 14, the jury . . . returned guilty verdicts on all counts. [On] March 2, 20 15, Mr. Galati was sentenced to an aggregate 271-m onth term of im prisonm ent, to be followed by five years of supervised release. On March 10 , 20 15, [Mr. Galati filed] a tim ely notice of appeal. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-00222-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/24/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 443 On his direct appeal, Mr. Galati raised one issue: "whether he was wrongly convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) of aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm during a crim e of violence and under 18 U.S.C. § 924(0 ) of conspiring to do the sam e, in so far as the offense of causing another to travel and interstate com m erce, or using facilities of such, in furtherance of m urder for hire is no longer a crim e of violence after J ohnson v United States, 135 S. CT, 2551". The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief and affirm ed Mr. Galati's conviction on October 30 , 20 15. A tim ely Writ of Certiorari to the United States Suprem e Court was filed on J anuary 8, 20 18. On J anuary 8, 20 18, the United States Suprem e Court denied Mr. Galati's Writ of Certiorari. [Dkt. No. 1., ¶ 1-7.] Thereafter, on J anuary 7, 20 19, Mr. Galati filed the instant m otion seeking relief under § 2255 or, in the alternative, a new trial pursuant to Rule 33. [See generally Dkt. No. 1.] In support of this m otion, Mr. Galati subm itted an affidavit from Ms. Tiffany Galati, dated J anuary 7, 20 19, in which Ms. Galati partially recants her trial testim ony, stating that she provided false testim ony regarding Mr. Andrew Tuono’s drug dealing. [Dkt. No. 1, Aff. of Tiffany Galati, ¶ 11.] On cross-exam ination when asked whether Mr. Tuono engaged in drug dealing, Ms. Galati answered no, but now affirm s that answer was false. [Id.] Stan d ard o f Re vie w I. Stan d ard fo r D e cid in g a Mo tio n to Vacate , Se t As id e , o r Co rre ct th e Se n te n ce Pu rs u an t to 2 8 U .S.C. § 2 2 5 5. A district court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a m otion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “unless the m otion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. Booth, 432 F.3d 542, 545– 46 (3d Cir. 20 0 5). The threshold the petitioner m ust m eet to obtain an evidentiary hearing is “reasonably low.” Booth, 432 2 Case 1:19-cv-00222-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/24/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 444 F.3d at 546. The “district court m ust ‘accept the truth of the m ovant's factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record.’” J ohnson v. United States, 294 F. App'x 70 9, 710 (3d Cir. 20 0 8) (quoting Booth, 432 F.3d at 545– 36). However, the court m ay dispose of “vague and conclusory allegations contained in a § 2255 petition.” J ohnson, 294 F. App'x at 710 (quoting United States v. Thom as, 221 F.3d 430 , 437 (3d Cir.20 0 0 )). In Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962), the Suprem e Court of the United States read the statute as stating four grounds upon which relief can be granted: (1) “that the sentence was im posed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States;” (2) “that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence;” (3) “that the sentence was in excess of the m axim um authorized by law;” or (4) that the sentence “is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” Id. at 426– 27 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a)). The statute provides as a rem edy for a sentence im posed in violation of law that “the court shall vacate and set the judgm ent aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as m ay appear appropriate.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). Nonetheless, “a conviction does not violate the Constitution (or becom e otherwise subject to collateral attack) just because newly discovered evidence im plies that the defendant is innocent.” United States v. Evans, 224 F.3d 670 , 674 (20 0 0 ) (discussing Herrera v. Collins, 50 6 U.S. 390 (1993)). Moreover, “[w]here newly discovered evidence is alleged in a habeas application . . . such evidence m ust bear upon the constitutionality of the applicant’s detention; the existence m erely of newly 3 Case 1:19-cv-00222-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/24/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 445 discovered evidence relevant to the guilt of a state prisoner is not a ground for relief on federal habeas corpus.” Herrera, 50 6 U.S. at 40 0 -0 1. II. Stan d ard fo r D e cid in g a Mo tio n fo r N e w Trial Pu rs u an t to Ru le 3 3 . F EDERAL R ULE OF CRIMINAL P ROCEDURE 33(a) perm its a court to “vacate any judgm ent and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” A defendant m ay seek such relief by way of newly discovered evidence or “on any reason other than newly discovered evidence.” F ED. R. CRIM . P. 33(b). For relief based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant m ust file for relief within three years after the verdict or finding of guilty. F ED. R. CRIM . P. 33(b)(1). A defendant seeking relief “grounded on any reason other than newly discovered evidence m ust be filed within 14 days after the verdict or finding of guilty.” F ED. R. CRIM . P. 33(b)(2). The tim e lim itations imposed by Rule 33 are strictly construed. Herrera, 50 6 U.S. at 40 9. On a m otion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a court m ay grant the m otion if all five of the following requirem ents are satisfied: (1) the evidence m ust be in fact, newly discovered, i.e., discovered since the trial; (2) facts m ust be alleged from which the court m ay infer diligence on the part of the m ovant; (3) the evidence relied on, m ust not be m erely cum ulative or im peaching; (4) it m ust be m aterial to the issues involved; and (5) it m ust be such, and of such nature, as that, on a new trial, the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal. United States v. Cim era, 459 F.3d 452, 458 (3d Cir. 20 0 6) (quoting United States v. Iannelli, 528 F.2d 1290 , 1292 (3d Cir. 1976) (em phasis added)). 4 Case 1:19-cv-00222-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/24/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 446 A “heavy burden” weighs on the m ovant when proving each requirem ent. Cim era, 459 F.3d at 458. The decision regarding a m otion for a new trial under F EDERAL R ULE OF CRIMINAL P ROCEDURE 33 is left to a court’s discretion. Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Lim a, 774 F.2d 1245, 1250 (3d Cir. 1985). This discretion is very narrow; a court can order a new trial “‘only if it believes that there is a serious danger that a m iscarriage of justice has occurred – that is, . . . an innocent person has been convicted."' United States v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 10 0 4-0 5 (3d Cir. 20 0 8) (quoting United States v. J ohnson, 30 2 F.3d 139, 150 (3d Cir. 20 0 2)). Norm ally, Rule 33 m otions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence require that “the evidence m ust create an actual probability that an acquittal would have resulted if the evidence had been available.” Cim era, 459 F.3d at 458 (em phasis added). Affidavits of recanting witnesses are treated with “great suspicion.” Landano v. Rafferty, 8 56 F.2d 569, 572 (3d Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Miner, 131 F.3d 1271, 1273 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Courts look upon recantations with suspicion.”); Spence v. J ohnson, 80 F.3d 989, 997 (5th Cir. 1996) (“recanting affidavits and witnesses are viewed with extrem e suspicion by the courts” (internal quotation om itted)); United States v. Cham bers, 944 F.2d 1253, 1264 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Recanting affidavits and witnesses are viewed with extrem e suspicion.”). Courts are “particularly reluctant to grant such m otions where the newly discovered evidence consists of a witness recantation.” United States v. Di Paolo, 835 F.2d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 1987) (internal quotation om itted). 5 Case 1:19-cv-00222-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/24/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 447 D is cu s s io n I. 2 8 U .S.C. § 2 2 5 5 a. Tim e lin e s s The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) provides that a one-year period of lim itation applies to a m otion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Lloyd v. United States, 40 7 F.3d 60 8, 611 (3d Cir. 20 0 5). In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 states, “A 1– year period of lim itation shall apply to a m otion under this section.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The statute provides that the lim itations period shall run from the latest of the following: (1) the date on which the judgm ent of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the im pedim ent to m aking a m otion created by governm ental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is rem oved, if the m ovant was prevented from m aking a m otion by such governm ental action; (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Suprem e Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Suprem e Court and m ade retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claim s presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Id. The m otion is tim ely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Galati's conviction becam e final on J anuary 8, 20 18, when his writ of certiorari to the United States Suprem e Court was denied; thus, the statute of lim itations expired one year later on J anuary 8, 20 19. [Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 7.] Mr. Galati filed this instant m otion on J anuary 7, 20 19, one day before the expiration date. [See generally Dkt. No. 1.] 6 Case 1:19-cv-00222-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/24/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 448 b. Se ctio n 2 2 5 5: Re lie f Th ro u gh N e w ly D is co ve re d Evid e n ce 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides relief in lim ited circum stances. Here, Mr. Galati does not contend that his conviction violates the Constitution or any statute, nor does he claim that a constitutional error was com m itted. Such errors com m only relate to the governm ent withholding of Brady or Giglio inform ation. See, e.g., Brookins v. United States, No. CIV. 12-12, 20 13 WL 364231 (W.D. Pa. J an. 30 , 20 13) (deciding a m atter relating to an alleged Brady violation). Petitioner alleges that newly discovered evidence dem onstrates that a factual injustice occurred, not a constitutional error. As held in Herrera, 50 6 U.S. 390 (1993), § 2255 does not extend to claim s of ‘actual innocence’ independent of a constitutional claim . Without bringing a constitutional claim within Petitioner’s allegation, newly discovered evidence is not a ground for federal habeas relief. See Herrera, 50 6 U.S. at 40 0 . “[W]hat we have to deal with [on habeas review] is not the petitioners' innocence or guilt but solely the question whether their constitutional rights have been preserved.” Id. (quoting Moore v. Dem psey, 261 U.S. 86, 87-88 (1923)). c. Ce rtificate o f App e alability A court issuing a final order denying a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 m otion m ust also m ake a determ ination about whether a certificate of appealability (“COA”) should issue. See 3rd Cir. L.A.R. 22.2. When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim , a COA should issue when the petitioner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. 7 Case 1:19-cv-00222-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/24/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 449 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484– 85 (20 0 0 ). Based upon the m otion, files, and records of the instant case, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Petitioner did not show a denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, a COA should not issue. II. F ED ERAL R U LES OF CRIMIN AL P ROCED U RE 3 3 a. Tim e lin e s s In the alternative to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner seeks a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Crim inal Procedure 33. [Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 19] Rule 33 is sought based on newly discovered evidence, nam ely, Ms. Galati’s J anuary 20 19 affidavit. Id. Facially, this filing is untim ely pursuant to Rule 33. F EDERAL R ULE OF CRIMINAL P ROCEDURE 33(a) perm its a court to “vacate any judgm ent and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Mr. Galati seeks such relief by way of newly discovered evidence. [Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 19]; F ED. R. CRIM . P. 33(b). For relief based on newly discovered evidence, Mr. Galati m ust have filed for relief within three years after being found guilty. F ED. R. CRIM . P. 33(b)(1). Here, a jury returned its verdict convicting Mr. Galati on Septem ber 30 , 20 14. The m otion at bar com es alm ost four and a half years after the verdict and finding of guilty, which is approxim ately a year and a half after the statute of lim itations had expired. As such, Mr. Galati’s m otion will be denied. b. N e w Trial Re qu ire m e n ts Despite being untim ely, for the sake of com pleteness, the m erits of Petitioner’s m otion regarding Rule 33 m ust also be analyzed. Affidavits, like the one Petitioner proffers here, are looked at skeptically by the Court. See, e.g., Landano, 856 F.2d at 572. 8 Case 1:19-cv-00222-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/24/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 450 Additionally, Petitioner m ust satisfy all five Rule 33 requirem ents regarding newly discovered evidence. See Cim era, 459 F.3d at 458. Petitioner fails to satisfy requirem ents four and five, nam ely: (4) it m ust be m aterial to the issues involved; and (5) it m ust be such, and of such nature, as that on a new trial, the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal. Id. With regard to the fourth and fifth requirem ents, the alleged new evidence set forth by Ms. Galati is not m aterial and would not produce a probable acquittal. Ms. Galati’s affidavit partially recanting her statem ents regarding Mr. Tuono’s drug dealings is irrelevant to whether Petitioner hired Mr. J ohnson, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Matthews to kill Mr. Tuono. Ms. Galati did not offer direct testim ony against Petitioner; rather, her statem ents act as evidence to establish the relationship between Ms. Galati, Mr. Tuono, and Petitioner. [Dkt. No. 6-4 at 867-884.] The Court agrees with the Governm ent’s argum ents relying on the trial transcript and new affidavit: Ms. Galati did not accuse her father of ordering the m urder. Additional evidence that Mr. Tuono allegedly sold drugs would have had no bearing on whether Petitioner hired Mr. J ohnson, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Matthews to kill Mr. Tuono as charged in the indictm ent. Even if the jury had heard Ms. Galati’s testim ony that Mr. Tuono sold drugs, there was am ple other evidence of Petitioner's guilt. That evidence included the facilitator and the two hitm en that were all hired by Petitioner to travel from Philadelphia to Atlantic City to kill Mr. Tuono. Ms. Galati’s partial recantation of a non-m aterial issue does nothing to refute the fact that Mr. J ohnson, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Matthews all testified that Petitioner hired them to kill Mr. Tuono. Mr. J ohnson testified that Petitioner wanted Mr. Tuono dead. [Dkt. No. 63 at 761.] 9 Case 1:19-cv-00222-JHR Document 7 Filed 11/24/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 451 Mr. J ohnson told both Mr. Walker and Mr. Matthews that Petitioner wanted Mr. Tuono killed. [Dkt. No. 6-3 at 761-62.] Mr. Walker testified that Petitioner told Mr. Walker that he wanted Mr. Tuono killed, that Petitioner did not want to be im plicated in the crim e, and that Petitioner was willing to pay Mr. Walker $ 20 ,0 0 0 . [Dkt. No. 6-1 at 27273.] Mr. Matthews testified that Mr. J ohnson approached Mr. Matthews on Petitioner’s behalf to kill Mr. Tuono. [Dkt. No. 6-2 at 686-87, 698.] [Dkt. No. 6, at 11-12.] Thus, there is sufficient evidence in the record to find that Ms. Galati’s affidavit would not increase the probability of acquittal enough to warrant a new trial, nor is the Affidavit m aterial to determ ining Petitioner’s guilt. Co n clu s io n For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s m otion [Dkt. No. 1.] will be denied. Novem ber 24, 20 20 Date s/ J oseph H. Rodriguez_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ HON. J OSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ United States District J udge 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
