The US Supreme Court is set to hear Delligatti v. United States, a pivotal case that will reassess the definition of a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S. Code § 924(c)(3). The case has been granted certiorari and is slated for the 2024 to 2025 term. This development raises important questions regarding the interpretation of the use of physical force within the context of violent crimes.
Under the statute, a “crime of violence” is characterized as a felony offense that either “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” or involves “a substantial risk that physical force” may be employed during the commission of the offense. The definition has sparked controversy due to varying interpretations by different courts, particularly concerning the use-of-force language embedded in the statute. The key issue in Delligatti v. United States is whether a crime necessitating proof of bodily injury or death, but which can also be committed through inaction, constitutes an element of physical force.
The petitioner in this case, Delligatti, an associate of the Genovese Crime Family, was implicated in a plot to murder Joseph Bonelli at the behest of a local gas station owner. Despite assembling a murder crew and providing the weapon, the plan was abandoned when a potential witness appeared. Law enforcement promptly intervened as the crew returned, leading to Delligatti’s indictment for multiple federal offenses, including 18 U.S. Code § 1962 (d), 18 U.S. Code § 1955, 18 U.S. Code § 1958, 18 U.S. Code § 1959(a)(5), and 18 U.S. Code § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He was subsequently sentenced to 300 months in prison in the Southern District of New York.
The Second Circuit previously ruled that inaction qualified as involving the use of physical force, standing in contrast to rulings from other appellate courts which held that the element of force is not intrinsic to crimes that can be committed by omission. As such, the Supreme Court’s decision to review the case highlights the judiciary’s ongoing struggle to reconcile these conflicting interpretations.
More details regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case can be found in the court order and through additional coverage provided by JURIST. Oral arguments are set to take place as part of the Court’s next term, commencing in October.