On July 16, 2026, tragedy struck Syracuse, NY, when 17-year-old Kevin Cuozzo lost his life after being fatally stabbed multiple times in the torso and neck during a confrontation. This senseless act of violence left Kevin's family devastated and the community in shock. The suspect in this case claimed self-defense, resulting in a grand jury's controversial decision not to indict for murder. This ruling has generated widespread public concern and outrage, highlighting the urgent need for change in our legal system.

We call upon Congress, the United States House of Representatives, and the President to introduce "The Cuozzo 2026 Law." This proposed legislation aims to ensure that claims of self-defense are thoroughly and transparently examined in tragic cases like Kevin's. While self-defense is an important legal principle, it should not be used to shield individuals from accountability in cases of fatal violence.

Our goal with "The Cuozzo 2026 Law" is to implement stricter guidelines for self-defense claims, requiring comprehensive investigations and evidence evaluations to prevent misuse of this defense. The law should also mandate better training for law enforcement and legal professionals to recognize and address abuse of self-defense claims.

Each year, countless families endure the pain of losing a loved one, only to face the disbelief and frustration when justice is not served. Introducing "The Cuozzo 2026 Law" is a step toward ensuring that victims' families receive the justice they deserve and that perpetrators of violence are held accountable. We owe it to Kevin, and to all victims of violence, to make our justice system more just and humane.

Join us in urging our lawmakers to take action. By signing this petition, you are advocating for a change that could protect families and communities from enduring similar heartbreak in the future. Let's work together to ensure that Kevin Cuozzo's legacy is one of justice and reform. Please sign and share this petition to demand the creation of "The Cuozzo 2026 Law."

 

The Cuozzo 2026 Law — Model Statute

Section 1.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Cuozzo 2026 Law.

 

Section 2.

Findings and Purpose

The legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) That on July 16,2026. 17‑year‑old Kevin Cuozzo was fatally stabbed multiple times in the torso and neck region during a confrontation in Syracuse, NY; the suspect claimed self‑defense and a grand jury declined to indict for murder, causing public concern about the adequacy of existing legal standards in cases involving multiple stab wounds.

(b) That multiple penetrating wounds to the torso or neck commonly produce incapacitating injuries and are strongly probative of an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

(c) That a narrowly tailored statutory presumption will assist prosecutors and juries in evaluating claims of self‑defense in cases where the physical evidence indicates repeated, targeted stabbing to vital body regions.

(d) The purpose of this Act is to create a rebuttable evidentiary presumption in homicide prosecutions where the victim sustained multiple stab wounds to the torso or neck, to ensure consistent application of the law, and to honor the memory of Kevin Cuozzo by reducing the likelihood that violent attacks of this nature are mischaracterized as lawful self‑defense without adequate proof.

 

Section 3. 

Definitions

For purposes of this Act:

(a) “Stab” means a penetrating wound caused by a sharp instrument that pierces the skin and underlying tissues.

(b) “Torso or neck region” means the anatomical areas bounded by the clavicles superiorly, the diaphragm inferiorly, the mid‑axillary lines laterally, and the base of the skull posteriorly.

(c) “Multiple stab wounds” means three or more separate penetrating wounds inflicted on the victim.

(d) “Rebuttable presumption” means a presumption that shifts the evidentiary burden of production to the defendant to introduce admissible evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact; the presumption does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

(e)“Initiator of the confrontation” means the person whose words or overt acts, viewed objectively, were the immediate cause of the physical confrontation. Evidence of prior threats, aggressive pursuit, or the first use of unlawful force may be considered in determining who initiated the confrontation.

(f) “Dangerous weapon” means any instrument that, by design or use, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, including but not limited to firearms, knives, bludgeons, or other objects used in a manner likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. The term includes the use of a firearm to strike or pistol‑whip even if the firearm was not discharged.

 

Section 4.

Presumption of Intent in Multiple Stabbing Cases

(a) Presumption Established. In any prosecution for homicide or any lesser included offense arising from an incident in which the victim sustained three or more stab wounds to the torso or neck region, there is a rebuttable presumption that:

(1) the defendant acted with malice aforethought or the requisite mental state for murder under applicable law; and

(2) the force used was not justified as lawful self‑defense solely by the fact of a confrontation.
The presumption is applicable regardless of which party initiated the confrontation, but the fact of who initiated the confrontation shall be admissible and considered by the trier of fact in determining whether the presumption has been rebutted. The presumption also permits consideration of the nature of the weapon used by the alleged victim against the defendant; however, the mere presence or use of a more dangerous weapon by the alleged victim (for example, using a firearm to pistol‑whip rather than to shoot) does not by itself authorize the defendant to use deadly force beyond what would be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. In particular, evidence that the defendant inflicted only one or two penetrating wounds to the torso or neck may be consistent with a claim of proportional self‑defense in some circumstances, but the infliction of three or more penetrating wounds to the torso or neck creates the presumption described above and requires the defendant to produce admissible evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that the force used was lawful and proportionate.

(b) Effect of Presumption. The presumption shifts the burden of production to the defendant to present admissible evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact that the defendant acted in lawful self‑defense or that the presumption is otherwise inapplicable. The presumption does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

(c) Standard to Rebut. To overcome the presumption, the defendant must produce credible, admissible evidence that, when considered with all other evidence, would permit a reasonable jury to find that the defendant’s use of force was objectively reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced. The jury shall weigh the totality of the evidence, including who initiated the confrontation and the nature and use of any weapon by the alleged victim, in determining whether the presumption has been rebutted.

 

Section 5.

Forensic and Trial Procedures

(a) Forensic Findings. Medical examiner and forensic pathology reports describing the number, location, and nature of penetrating wounds shall be admissible and may be used to establish the factual predicate for the presumption. Expert testimony regarding the typical incapacitating effects of multiple penetrating wounds to the torso or neck may be admitted.

(b) Jury Instructions. When the presumption applies, the court shall provide the jury with a clear instruction explaining the presumption, the defendant’s burden of production to rebut it, and that the presumption does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Model jury instructions shall be promulgated by the state’s judicial council or equivalent body within 180 days of enactment.

(c) Pretrial Motions. Either party may file pretrial motions addressing the admissibility of forensic evidence, expert testimony, and the applicability of the presumption. The court shall rule on such motions in advance of trial where practicable.

 

Section 6. Penalties

(a) A person convicted of murder under existing state law where the presumption applies shall be subject to the penalties provided by law for murder.

(b) Nothing in this Act creates a new category of offense or increases the maximum penalty beyond what is authorized under existing homicide statutes; rather, it provides an evidentiary framework for proving the mental state and justifiability issues in prosecutions.

 

Section 7.

Limitations and Constitutional Protections

(a) Due Process. This Act is intended to be applied in a manner consistent with the defendant’s constitutional rights, including the right to a fair trial, the right to present a defense, and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

(b) Nonretroactivity. This Act shall apply prospectively to offenses committed on or after the effective date of this Act and shall not be applied to bar or overturn final convictions unless otherwise required by law.

(c) Narrow Tailoring. The presumption is limited to cases meeting the specific factual predicate (three or more penetrating wounds to the torso or neck) and is not intended to displace legitimate claims of self‑defense supported by credible evidence.

 

Section 8.

Implementation

(a) The Attorney General in all US states or equivalent agencies shall issue guidance for prosecutors on the application of this Act within 120 days of enactment.

(b) The states, cities, towns, & villages in the US shall commission a two‑year review of the Act’s application, including data on prosecutions, acquittals, convictions, and any impacts on lawful self‑defense claims; the review shall be reported to the legislature.

 

Section 9.

Severability and Effective Date

(a) Severability. If any provision of this Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

(b) Effective Date. This Act shall take effect on [date], and shall apply to offenses committed on or after that date.

 

 

Short Explanatory Note for Sponsors and Drafters:

(a) Who initiated the confrontation remains relevant and admissible; the statute does not bar consideration of initiation but makes clear that initiation alone will not automatically defeat the presumption created by multiple stab wounds.

(b) Weapon severity is a factor: using a firearm to strike (pistol‑whip) is treated as use of a dangerous weapon, but non‑discharge use of a firearm does not automatically justify an escalatory use of deadly force beyond what is objectively reasonable.

(c) Baseline guidance: the statute signals that 1–2 penetrating wounds may, in some contexts, be consistent with proportional self‑defense, whereas 3+ penetrating wounds to torso/neck triggers the rebuttable presumption. This is an evidentiary rule, not a mandatory sentencing enhancement; it preserves constitutional protections by remaining rebuttable and by leaving ultimate guilt determination to the jury.

 

 

Model Jury Instruction Language

Instruction Title: Presumption Arising from Multiple Penetrating Wounds
Instruction No. [__]

Statement of Law - If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim sustained three or more penetrating stab wounds to the torso or neck region, then a rebuttable presumption arises that the defendant acted with the mental state required for murder and that the defendant’s use of force was not justified solely because a confrontation occurred.

What the Presumption Means - A rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of production to the defendant to present admissible evidence that could allow a reasonable juror to find the defendant acted in lawful self‑defense. The presumption does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence Jurors May Consider - In deciding whether the defendant has rebutted the presumption, you may consider all admissible evidence, including but not limited to:

(a) Who initiated the confrontation - Evidence that the defendant did not start the confrontation is relevant and may support a claim of self‑defense, but initiation alone does not automatically overcome the presumption created by multiple penetrating wounds.

(b) Nature and use of any weapon by the alleged victim - The type of weapon and how it was used are relevant to whether the defendant reasonably believed deadly force was necessary. The mere presence of a more dangerous weapon or its non‑discharge use (for example, using a firearm to strike rather than to shoot) does not by itself justify the defendant’s use of deadly force beyond what is objectively reasonable.

(c) Number, location, and severity of wounds. Forensic and medical evidence describing the wounds is highly probative of the force used and the likely incapacitating effect on the victim.

(d) Standard to Rebut - To rebut the presumption, the defendant must produce credible, admissible evidence that, when considered with all other evidence, would permit a reasonable juror to find that the defendant’s use of force was objectively reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced. If the defendant meets this burden of production, the presumption no longer controls and you must decide the case based on all the evidence and the prosecution’s obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

(e) Instruction on Reasonable Force - You must determine whether the defendant’s belief that deadly force was necessary was both subjectively held and objectively reasonable under the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time. Force that is excessive or disproportionate to the threat is not lawful self‑defense.

Closing - If, after considering all evidence and these instructions, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the mental state required for murder and that the use of force was not justified, you must find the defendant guilty of the charged offense. If reasonable doubt remains, you must acquit.

 

Title: The Cuozzo 2026 Law — Ensuring Fair Evaluation of Multiple‑Stab Homicides

Purpose: To create a narrow, rebuttable evidentiary presumption in homicide prosecutions where victims sustain three or more penetrating stab wounds to the torso or neck, improving consistency in prosecutions and protecting families from outcomes where repeated, targeted stabbing is treated as justified self‑defense without sufficient proof.

 

Why This Is Needed:

(a) Physical reality - Multiple penetrating wounds to vital areas are frequently incapacitating and are strong evidence of an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

(b) Case example - The statute is proposed in memory of Kevin Cuozzo, a 17‑year‑old who was fatally stabbed multiple times. The family experienced prosecutorial and grand jury outcomes they believe did not adequately reflect the physical evidence.

(c) Gap in practice - Current self‑defense doctrines can be applied inconsistently when confronting repeated, targeted stabbing, especially where weapon use by either party complicates assessments of proportionality.

 

Key Provisions:

(a) Trigger - Presumption applies when victim sustains three or more penetrating stab wounds to torso or neck.

(b) Rebuttable - Defendant may rebut by producing credible, admissible evidence that the use of force was objectively reasonable and proportionate.

(c) Admissible evidence - Forensic reports and expert testimony on wound effects are explicitly admissible to establish the factual predicate.

(d) Consideration of initiation and weapon - Who initiated the confrontation and the nature/use of any weapon are admissible factors; initiation or weapon presence alone will not automatically defeat the presumption.

(e) Constitutional safeguards - The presumption is evidentiary only, preserves the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and protects the defendant’s right to present a defense.

 

Benefits:

(a) Promotes consistent prosecutorial charging decisions - Gives prosecutors a clear evidentiary framework for evaluating self‑defense claims in severe stabbing cases.

(b) Supports juror clarity - Standard jury instructions help jurors weigh complex evidence about wounds, initiation, and weapon use.

(c) Protects legitimate self‑defense - The presumption is rebuttable and limited to a specific factual predicate, preserving lawful self‑defense where justified.

 

Addressing Concerns:

(a) Due process - The presumption is rebuttable and does not shift the prosecution’s ultimate burden of proof.

(b) Overbreadth - The statute is narrowly tailored to a specific, high‑severity factual scenario and includes explicit limits and jury safeguards.

(c) Weapon escalation - The statute clarifies that non‑discharge use of a weapon by an alleged victim does not automatically justify escalatory deadly force.