In a decision that turns hundreds of years of legal precedent on its head, a judge ruled yesterday that juries should be made aware of “harsh mandatory minimum” sentencing rules in certain cases.
Maverick Brooklyn federal Judge Jack Weinstein issued the ruling in a child-porn case over which he presided – chastising himself for not telling the jury that the defendant faced a minimum five-year sentence before it found him guilty.
The drastic ruling says juries should be told what sentences certain criminals face, especially if the prison terms are particularly long.
It attempts to reverse the long-standing rule that jurors not be given sentencing information so they can decide guilt or innocence, without letting the potential punishment color their thinking.
“The judge has gone out on a limb here,” said a law-enforcement source. “There’s clear case law that says the jury should not be informed about mandatory minimums.”
Weinstein made his stand in declaring a mistrial in the conviction of Pietro Polizzi, 54, a Brooklyn pizza-shop owner.
Weinstein wrote that he “committed a constitutional error” by not telling the jury about the sentence.
Weinstein declared the mistrial on the top count – receiving child porn – and instead gave Polizzi one year in prison on a lesser count of possession.
Prosecutor Allen Bode vowed to appeal.
At trial, Polizzi argued an insanity defense, claiming he was sexually abused as a child and that he’d downloaded the porn only to research his own past.
After Polizzi was convicted, Weinstein polled the jurors, asking if they would have issued the same verdict had they known the mandatory minimum sentence. Many said no, stating they felt Polizzi needed treatment, not prison time.
That knowledge “might well have led to a hung jury or a verdict of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity,” the judge wrote.