Letter, Full Unredacted Access to the Supplemental Sentencing Memo — United States v. Agnello (Dkt. 39)

Summary

A letter dated April 16, 2026 from Jerry Capeci of Gang Land News to the Honorable Nusrat Choudhury in US v. Carmine C, Agnello, 24CR366 (NJC), Document 39, filed 04/16/26. Capeci, who describes himself as a news reporter, asks to intervene and to have the letter treated as a pro se motion asserting the public's First Amendment and common law rights to unredacted access to the supplemental sentencing memo dated April 13, 2026. Capeci asks the Court to unseal the blacked out portions of document 33 before the sentencing on Monday and says the sentencing is currently scheduled for April 20. The letter says the defendant was granted a delay to donate a kidney to the defendant's mother and that the April 13 filing says the surgical procedure "has not even taken place."

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 2:24-cr-00366-NJC Document 39 _ Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 4 PagelD #: 2182

Gang Land News

Real Stuff about Organized Crime

capeci@ganglandnews.com FILED

Jerry Capeci CLERK
April 16, 2026

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE

RECEIVED

The Honorable Nusrat Choudhury April 16, 2026
US District Court

Cental Islip, NY 11722 |_PRO SE OFFICE

Re: US v. Carmine C, Agnello 24CR366 NJC)
Dear Judge Choudhury:

April 16, 2026

I respectfully submit this letter to the Court for the purpose of intervening in U.S. v Agnello in
order to assert the public's rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution and the common
law to obtain full unredacted access to the supplemental sentencing memo dated April 13, 2026
that has been and filed by the current counsel for the defendant.

Specifically, I petition the Court to treat this application as a claim asserted by an interested party
who is petitioning your Honor on behalf of the public to unseal the blacked out portions of
document 33 on the first and second pages of the three page document submitted by attorneys
Jeffrey Lichtman and Jeffrey Einhorn.

I am a news reporter, have covered federal court proceedings since the mid-1970s, for the New
York Post, and later for the New York Daily News. Since 1996, I have published an online
column about organized crime at www.ganglandnews.com. | have written about the defendant's
guilty plea. | am planning to write about his sentencing, currently scheduled before Your Honor
on April 20.!

I ask that the Court treat this letter as a pro se motion, list it as such on the court docket sheet,
and declare that I am an interested party in the case, as judges in this Court and others have done
in cases where | have intervened on behalf of the public.

' Notably, the motives of the press and public for seeking access to redacted information is not relevant or
dispositive to whether access should be granted, because the party seeking closure bears the burden of
demonstrating that the information submitted to the court should be sealed. DiRussa v. Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 820 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (The motive for
seeking access is irrelevant when defining the weight accorded the presumption of access.)

P.O Box 863 * Long Beach, NY 11561 * (516) 431-1277
www.ganglandnews.com
Case 2:24-cr-00366-NJC Document 39 _ Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 4 PagelD #: 2183

Gang Land News

Real Stuff about Organized Crime

capeci@ganglandnews.com
Jerry Capeci

This petition is made pursuant to the tenets of the common law and the First Amendment of the
Constitution, and the relevant statutes and judicial precedents that ensure the public's right of
access to judicial documents in criminal prosecutions in the United States, including sentencing
memos,

It is well established that except for extraordinary reasons, namely those that involve national
security or safety of witnesses or other individuals, the public and the press have a common law
right as well as a First Amendment right to all judicial documents, including letters and exhibits,
in all criminal cases.

The First Amendment guarantees the press and the public "a general right of access to court
proceedings and court documents unless there are compelling reasons demonstrating why it
cannot be observed." Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 287-88 (D.C. Cir. 1991); See
also Inre New York Times Co., 828 F.2d, 110,114 (2d Cir. 1987) ("where the first amendment
provides a right of access, continued, sealing of documents may be justified only with specific,
on-the record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing
order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim").

As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, the public has an independent First Amendment right
of access to criminal proceedings to ensure the transparency and legitimacy of the judicial
process. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980). The right of access "is so
fundamental, because it 'contribute[s] to public understanding of the rule of law and to
comprehension of the functioning of the entire criminal justice system. . . ."" Jd. at 572-573
(quoting Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 587 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring in
the judgment). A criminal justice system built on "openness thus enhances both the basic fairness
of the criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the
system." Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984) ("Press-
Enterprise I") (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 569-571)

In discussing the history of open proceedings, the Supreme Court noted that through openness,
the public is better able to ensure "the proper functioning of a trial; it gave assurance that the
proceedings were conducted fairly to all concerned, and it discouraged perjury, the misconduct
of participants, and decisions based on secret bias or partiality." Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S.
at 569.

Upon information and belief, the same Supreme Court dicta applies to cases resolved by a guilty
plea, which has occurred here, involving the grandson of convicted Mafia boss John Gotti. The
defendant, who co-starred with his mother, Victoria Gotti, on a reality TV show, had sought a

P.O Box 863 * Long Beach, NY 11561 + (516) 431-1277
www.ganglandnews.com
Case 2:24-cr-00366-NJC Document 39 _ Filed 04/16/26 Page 3 of 4 PagelD #: 2184

Gang Land News

Real Stuff about Organized Crime

capeci@ganglandnews.com
Jerry Capeci

downward departure from his sentencing guidelines because he was donating a kidney to his
mom, and his prior sentencing date was postponed to allow him to do so on March 30.

The April 13 filing indicates that either Ms. Gotti's condition, or the health of the defendant, has
changed since then, or that the prior filing was not correct.

In their filing, the lawyers state that the "surgical procedure . . . has not even taken place." But
they do not state — in the filing's unredacted portions — whether it has been postponed and will be
rescheduled at a future time.

Instead, the lawyers imply that the procedure has been cancelled in a blacked out section two
sentences later, where they state: "We simply ask that the Court recognize the defendant's offer
to aid his mother and donate his kidney as an exceptionally good deed, with serious risks
attached, warranting consideration as part of the ‘history and characteristics of the defendant.""

Since the defendant has publicly detailed numerous reasons why his mother needed to receive his
kidney, and he was granted a delay in his sentencing in order to accomplish that goal, the public,
through the news reporters who are covering this story, should not have to guess why the
situation has changed. It should have access to all the unredacted reasons that the defendant has
told the Court about the dramatically changed circumstances regarding the planned donation of
his kidney to his mother.

I respectfully request that Your Honor decide this motion on an expedited basis. In that vein, I
ask the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that the public should have access to court
documents contemporaneously with their filings, since that is when they are most newsworthy,
not weeks or months later, when the story is "old news," and any unsealed info would be less
likely to be published, and less likely to be seen if a story is later published.

That is especially so, in this case, in which the defendant publicly filed numerous exhibits that
disclosed in detail the medical ailments that Ms. Gotti suffers as a reason why he should receive
a downward departure from his sentencing guidelines — and a delay in his sentencing — so he
could donate a kidney to his mom on March 30. That info was widely reported and the public
should know all the reasons why the Court has been told that is no longer the case.

In the case of Jn re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1994), the Second Circuit
explained that "[i]n most cases, a judge must carefully and skeptically review sealing requests to
insure that there really is an extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." And, "where the
first amendment provides a right of access, continued sealing of documents may be justified only
with specific, on-the record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only

P.O Box 863 + Long Beach, NY 11561 * (516) 431-1277
www.ganglandnews.com
Case 2:24-cr-00366-NJC Document 39 _ Filed 04/16/26 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #: 2185

Gang Land News

Real Stuff about Organized Crime

capeci@ganglandnews.com
Jerry Capeci

if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim." Jn re New York Times Co., 828 F2d
at 114 (2d Cir. 1987).

For all the above reasons, as well as any others the Court may deem relevant and appropriate, I
respectfully petition your Honor to unseal the blacked out portions of document 33, before the
sentencing on Monday. Upon information and belief, there are no legal reasons why the sealed
material, which the defense lawyers have redacted, should be withheld from the public.

I thank the court for its time and consideration in this important matter regarding both the
common law and First Amendment of the Constitution.

Sincerely,

/
Jerry ned é

cc Jeffrey Lichtman, Jeffrey Einhorn, Charles Kelly, via email.

P.O Box 863 * Long Beach, NY 11561 * (516) 431-1277
www.ganglandnews.com


File and source

File

39.pdf

Size

3,455,926 bytes

SHA-256

7f51460e6c1fc8830426cb0d22f61019d7608be38d1c82b308bc548bd6dc08fb

Our copy

39.pdf

Original

No public link identified.