Supreme Court Determines in Mob Case That Violent Crimes Can Occur Through Inaction
Salvatore Delligatti contended unsuccessfully that failing to act does not render him guilty of violent crime.
On March 21, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 7–2 that crimes committed by way of inaction can still be classified as violent, dismissing the alleged mobster’s claim of innocence due to not using physical force.
Prosecutors alleged that Delligatti engaged members of the Crips gang via a third party to execute a contract killing and supplied a revolver for this purpose.
Delligatti contended that the firearms possession charge under the Hobbs Act does not qualify as a crime of violence. While his appeal was ongoing, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Davis (2019) that the pertinent section of the Hobbs Act was unconstitutional.
Related Stories
To substantiate the charges, the government depended on four of the other offenses charged. A predicate refers to an event that occurs before a criminal act and serves as the foundation for a conviction or sentence enhancement.
Delligatti sought to dismiss the charges pre-trial, arguing that none of the charged predicates qualified as violent crimes under the law.
The federal district court rejected his motion to dismiss, determining that the other offenses were valid predicates.
A federal jury in New York found Delligatti guilty on all charges in March 2018, leading to a 300-month prison sentence.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the conviction in October 2023.
“Intentional murder is the quintessential ‘crime of violence,’ and it has long been recognized to incorporate liability for both action and inaction,” Thomas wrote, with his opinion supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, alongside Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
At the time the law was enacted, “it was well accepted that one could commit murder by failing to fulfill a legal obligation, such as providing for one’s child,” he continued.
The government noted, “this perspective has deep historical roots in common law,” as expressed by Thomas.
Common law pertains to a body of law established over centuries through court decisions, distinguished from legislatively enacted statutes.
Justice Neil Gorsuch provided a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Gorsuch cited the scenario of a lifeguard at a beach witnessing a swimmer in distress. If the lifeguard fails to intervene and allows the swimmer to drown, knowing that his inaction could result in the swimmer’s death, he questioned whether this circumstance meets the criteria under the Hobbs Act for a ‘crime of violence’ involving the ‘use … of physical force against the person … of another.’
“The Court believes so. I do not. Section 924(c)(3)(A) may encompass numerous crimes, but it does not include crimes of omission,” he stated.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment.
