Federal Criminal Defense

Overview

I have over a decade of federal criminal defense experience representing hundreds of clients in federal courts across the country accused of a broad array of white-collar crimes, controlled substance offenses, firearms offenses, violent crimes, sex crimes, computer crimes, and a host of regulatory offenses.

White-Collar Crimes

Definition and Scope

In his 1939 address to the American Sociological Society, the noted sociologist, Edwin H. Sutherland, defined “white-collar crime” as “crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation.” Today, the term is more broadly understood to refer to non-violent economic crimes including various categories of fraud offenses, embezzlement, and thefts, as well as currency violations, counterfeiting, import/export violations, identity theft, false statements and obstruction of justice, and participation in conspiracies involving these types of offenses.

Experience and Case Types

In this context, I have previously represented a large number of professionals including physicians, financial advisers, bank officers, U.S. government officials, and foreign government officials who were facing charges such as mail fraud, wire fraud, honest services fraud, bribery, bank fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, mortgage fraud, telemarketing fraud, credit card fraud, medicare fraud, pharmaceutical misbranding, money laundering, and import/export violations.

Key Challenges and Approach

These types of cases tend to be more complex than the run-of-the-mill criminal case principally because they tend to involve much more voluminous evidence. The hallmark of effective representation in these types of cases is an attorney’s ability to quickly gain a mastery of the subject matter involved, and to quickly and effectively organize the information that is important to the case by finding and organizing all of the proverbial needles in the haystack.

Controlled Substance Offenses

Range of Charges

A very large portion of all federal criminal cases are drug cases through which people are charged with the manufacture, possession, or distribution of any number of a very long list of controlled substances including cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids, powder and crack cocaine, methamphetamine and other amphetamine derivatives, heroin, other opioids and opium derivatives, hallucinogenic or psychedelic substances, or any number of a host of pharmaceutical depressants or stimulants.

Technical Expertise Required

A key point of effective representation in these types of cases involves understanding enough about the chemistry of these substances so as to subject the government’s evidence to meaningful adversarial testing.

Common Government Evidence and Defense Strategies

One common feature in drug cases, particularly when the government’s theory of liability is conspiracy, is to rely on confidential informants, controlled purchases by undercover agents, and various forms of electronic surveillance. Consequently, another hallmark of effective representation in drug cases is an understanding of the techniques that are necessary to challenge, discredit, and secure orders suppressing or excluding these types of evidence.

Challenging Expert Testimony

Another common feature of drug cases is when the government seeks to introduce the testimony of a police officer or drug enforcement agent, as an “expert” in the drug distribution business. These “experts” typically testify that whatever happened to be the facts of the case at hand is exactly how all drug organizations operate. Another important facet of effective advocacy in this type of representation would be to counter this sort of testimony either with effective cross-examination or with rebuttal testimony from an expert retained by the defense.

Firearms Offenses

Federal Firearms Laws

Federal law encompasses a large range of offenses related to the illegal possession, sale, purchase, and trafficking of firearms. Illegal possession of a firearm can relate to the person (being a convicted felon, or other prohibited person, in possession of a firearm) or to the firearm itself (stolen firearms, firearms with altered or removed serial numbers, or certain specific types of firearms subject to stricter licensing requirements such as machine guns, sound suppressors, or short-barreled rifles or shotguns). Federal law also criminalized the use or possession of firearms during or in connection to certain other crimes such as crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses. Federal law has also criminalized certain types of firearms transfers, such as engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license or making certain false statements during the purchase of a firearm.

Specialized Knowledge and Experience

As a lifelong sport-shooting enthusiast and former competitive shooter, in conjunction with having represented scores of clients charged with a broad range of firearms offenses, I have amassed a wealth of experience pertaining to nearly all facets of firearms design, manufacture, distribution, and functioning, as well as a wealth of expertise pertaining to ammunition of all calibers, including interior and exterior ballistics. This expertise has served to enhance my ability to defend cases where firearms were either central to the case or where they have played a significant role in the case by enabling me to identify issues that might have not been noticed by another attorney.

Violent Crimes

Common Elements and Types

At their core, violent crimes share the common element of force that is used or threatened against the person of the victim. Violent crimes include murder and manslaughter, robbery, burglary, battery and assault, rape and other sex crimes, arson, burglary, and kidnapping. During the course of my public defender career, I have represented individuals charged with all violent crimes, including capital murder.

Defense Strategies and Complexities

Cases of this sort are attended with their own legal complexities. Sometimes, false accusations due to misunderstandings, or even personal vendettas, are at the root of these cases. Other times, misidentification based on flawed eyewitness perceptions or bias plays a significant role. Beyond that, cases of this sort can sometimes give rise to affirmative defenses such as a justification defense (commonly referred to as self-defense), a lack of intent for offenses that require intentionality as an element (possibly due to intoxication, mistake, or misunderstanding), or on grounds of insufficient evidence in cases where the evidence is unreliable, incomplete, or otherwise inadequate to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Computer Crimes & Other Regulatory Offenses

Scope of Federal Criminal Law

By one account, there are 1,510 separate sections of the U.S. Code that have created crimes, and numerous others that were created through regulations promulgated by federal agencies rather than Congress. The upshot of this is that there are nearly 5,200 federal criminal offenses that can be committed.

Range of Offenses

They range from federal fish and game crimes (which encompass violations of laws protecting wildlife) to computer crimes (which encompass a broad array of offenses ranging from crimes involving malware, ransomware, hacking, software piracy, and intellectual property theft, to crimes involving the possession or distribution of child pornography or other obscene matter).

Tailored Approach

Each of these types of cases involve their own complexities which require a tailored approach suited to the specific needs of the case.

Pre-Arrest Investigations

While most people become aware of a criminal case upon being arrested, sometimes “subjects” or “targets” of investigations and prosecutions may be informed by investigators or prosecutors that they are being actively investigated. Under these circumstances, people are sometimes invited to meet with the investigators in order to provide their side of the story.

While it is possible that these pre-arrest meetings can cause investigators to realize their mistake and to turn their focus elsewhere, it is likely much more common that these types of pre-arrest meetings end up seeing the individual go from the proverbial frying pan into the fire.

At this phase of a case, an experienced attorney can evaluate whether such a meeting is even necessary or worthwhile. An attorney can also help navigate the client through the potential minefield of pre-arrest investigation while seeing to it that the client does not inadvertently worsen the evidentiary picture with which the client must already contend. Lastly, experienced defense counsel can sometimes manage to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution of a case at this pre-arrest phase.

Arrest & Detention Hearings

The Impact of Pretrial Detention

It goes without saying that being arrested can be one of the most unpleasant and traumatic of experiences. Worse yet is being denied bail and sitting in jail during the pendency of a criminal case. Pretrial confinement is especially onerous for nearly everyone because it takes place in a jail, and because all jails are typically high-security facilities. High security confinement is substantially more stressful than confinement in lower security facilities and, retrospectively considered, it is totally unnecessary for someone whose case would be later dismissed or who would eventually be found non-guilty at trial, or for someone who would later be convicted and sentenced but committed to a low-security prison.

Federal Bail Reform Framework

In 1966, and again in 1984, Congress reformed federal law relating to bail and pretrial release in order to shift the focus away from monetary considerations to the likelihood of a defendant’s appearance at future court proceedings and the issue of dangerousness to the community while on pretrial release. In many types of criminal cases, federal law establishes a presumption in favor of release – which means that if someone is to be detained, the prosecution must carry the burden of convincing a judge that there is either a risk of non-appearance at future proceedings, or that the defendant’s release represents a danger to the community, and that these risks cannot be appropriately addressed by one or more conditions of release.

Presumption Cases

In certain types of cases, however, federal law imposes a presumption in favor of detention because of the notion that the charges are so serious, that a risk of flight or dangerousness can be presumed. These “presumption” cases most often involve drug crimes where the maximum sentence is at least 10 years of imprisonment, certain types of firearms offenses, and certain violent crimes. Of course, just as is the case with the presumption favoring release which is applicable in most cases, the presumption favoring detention can also be rebutted.

Defense Strategy and Preparation

Because federal law affords judges with a range of conditions of release (emphasizing the least restrictive options necessary to assure appearance at future court proceedings), and because judges are required to consider a person’s overall background and their ties to the community (including family, employment, and other community connections) when determining the question of pretrial release as well as the appropriateness of any release conditions, an effective defense attorney would conduct a thorough investigation in the time between arrest and the bond hearing in order to make the most thorough presentation possible to the magistrate judge presiding over the detention hearing.

Appeals and Ongoing Advocacy

Even in the event of an adverse decision by a magistrate judge, a detention order is subject to prompt review by the district judge presiding over the entire case. In the event that the district judge refuses to disturb a magistrate judge’s detention order, under federal law, an order denying bail is immediately appealable. Furthermore, with further investigation and the establishment of newly discovered information that might shed new light on the inquiries related to the risk of non-appearance at future proceedings, the issue of dangerousness to the community, or the existence or appropriateness of any combinations of conditions of release that might address non-appearance risks or dangerousness issues, successive “renewed” motions for pretrial release may be filed. Therefore, a diligent and assertive defense attorney can continue to fight for a client’s pretrial release throughout the pretrial phase of a case – which could last for months, or even years, depending on the nature and complexity of the case.

Underlying Philosophy

The underlying philosophy of the Bail Reform Act of 1966 (as further revised in 1984) is – assuming a proper and thorough bail-related investigation and presentation by defense counsel – that the majority of federal criminal defendants should be able to avoid pre-trial detention under some combination of conditions of release because they are, after all, presumed to be innocent at this stage of the case.

Pretrial Motions

Overview and Constitutional Foundations

There are certain matters that can be litigated and decided by a judge at the beginning of a criminal case. The most frequently litigated pretrial motions in criminal cases are motions to suppress evidence or statements (i.e., confessions or other inculpatory statements). A large body of cases from the Supreme Court and the intermediate federal appellate courts interpreting the relevant provisions of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution governs the admissibility of certain types of evidence and a Defendant’s statements in criminal cases.

Strategic Approach to Suppression Motions

Early on in every criminal case, after the detention hearing but before the client’s decision between going to trial or negotiating a guilty-plea, an effective attorney must identify any evidence or statements that might be governed by this body of law and subject to exclusion from the case. In order to do this, two things are necessary. First, the attorney must already be familiar with the entirety of this body of law. Second, the attorney must have thoroughly reviewed the facts of the case in order to identify any such evidence or statements. Under these circumstances, it is possible for an effective defense lawyer to chip away at the evidence on which the prosecution would have relied at trial. Sometimes, the result is that the prosecution is left with inadequate evidence, or no evidence at all, and the result is a dismissal of the case. Other times, the prosecutor must decide whether to try to proceed to trial with a less-than-ideal evidentiary picture, or to engage a defendant in meaningful plea negotiations – through which, a prosecutor may be induced to make significant concessions.

Other Types of Pretrial Motions

Other types of pretrial motions that could dispose of an entire case would include motions to dismiss the case based on any of a great variety of arguments and theories such as prosecutorial misconduct (in the investigation of a case, or before the Grand Jury in the filing of the case), the unconstitutionality of the law (either on its face, or as applied to a particular set of facts), the inapplicability of the law as to the facts set forth in the indictment or charging document, or under any one of a number of doctrines of immunity. Other types of pretrial motions, ones that would not necessarily result in the dismissal of one or more of the charges, might affect the admissibility of evidence (either defense or prosecution evidence) at trial by securing a pretrial ruling that permits or prohibits the admission of entire categories of evidence. An effective attorney would thoroughly investigate and pursue all of these avenues in the course of a criminal case.

Trials & Plea-Bargains

Discovery Review and Case Analysis

At the outset of the criminal case, prosecutors are required to turn over the evidence in their file. In some cases, such as firearms cases, this body of evidence – called “discovery” – will constitute a relatively small volume of documents. In other cases, such as complex fraud cases, discovery can be measured in millions of documents, or more. In either case, an effective attorney will immediately review, dissect, catalog, and analyze the discovery with a view to identifying and weighing the weaknesses and the strengths of the government’s case. This analysis and weighing of the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence will determine the attorney’s advice and recommendation to the client vis-à-vis the decision to go to trial or to engage with the prosecutors in plea-bargain negotiations.

The Decision-Making Process

To put it simply, in cases where the evidence appears overwhelming, and it appears that a guilty verdict would be a foregone conclusion, it might be advantageous to negotiate a plea resolution to the case. Under those circumstances, the client who decided to engage in the plea-bargain process might walk away with a significantly lesser sentence than would have otherwise been the case. Under different circumstances, as a result of the evidentiary picture presented by reviewing the government’s discovery, as well as any applicable defenses to the charges, and as a result of facts brought to light by the defense’s own investigation, it may be advisable or imperative to proceed to trial. In any event, the decision as to whether to have a trial or to plead guilty belongs to the client, and it is the lawyer’s obligation to competently advise the client in the weighing of that decision based on a thorough and searching review of the discovery and an independent defense investigation into the facts surrounding the case.

Plea Bargaining Strategy

In the plea-bargaining context, it is incumbent on lawyers to employ all of their zeal, persistence, and their powers of persuasion to induce and convince the prosecution to agree to the most advantageous plea offer possible. In certain situations, it may sometimes be advantageous to advise a client to enter a guilty plea without any agreement with the prosecutors so that the defense would not be hamstrung in persuading the sentencing judge to hand down an otherwise more lenient sentence than would have been the case had the client been bound in an agreement with the prosecution.

Trial Preparation and Execution

In the lead-up to trial, an effective lawyer will have prepared by attaining a thorough understanding of the evidence in the case, by having thoroughly and independently investigated the facts of the case, by having prepared a cogent and persuasive case for the defense (through the introduction of any of the available types of evidence, including the testimony of expert witnesses when appropriate), by having investigated facts related to the credibility of the government’s fact witnesses or the validity of the testimony by any of the prosecution’s expert witnesses, and by having effectively used research and investigative tools in the jury selection process. Given the proper approach to trial preparation, coupled with a mastery of the law of evidence and procedure, an effective defense lawyer can ensure the selection of a fair and impartial jury, the presentation of a complete set of facts and evidence that would be necessary for the vindication of the client’s interests, a meaningful adversarial testing of the government’s evidence and the credibility of its witnesses, and the persuasive presentation of facts and argument that would support any available defenses. In this manner, an effective defense lawyer will preserve and ensure the client’s fundamental right to a fair trial by providing the effective assistance of counsel to which the client is constitutionally entitled.

Sentencing

The Two-Phase Structure of Criminal Cases

Every criminal case can be divided into two component parts. The aim of the first part is to determine guilt or innocence, either by trial or plea. Guilt is therefore either established by a defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent guilty plea, or by the unanimous verdict of a trial jury. The aim of the second part is to determine the appropriate punishment. Obviously, if someone proceeds to trial and is acquitted, or if a case is dismissed for any reason, there is no sentencing phase.

Statutory Ranges and Sentencing Reform

Whenever Congress defines a crime, it also creates a range of punishment. For example, federal law prohibits counterfeiting, forging, or altering U.S. currency, and a conviction for that offense exposes a defendant to a term of imprisonment of up to 20 years. This is what is referred to as the “statutory range,” which, in the case of counterfeiting, ranges from zero to twenty years in prison; the statutory range represents the absolute limits of punishment for an offense. Because Congress eventually found that the statutory sentencing process was producing unwarranted disparities between sentences imposed in different courts for the same or similar conduct, it enacted a series of reforms through the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 with a view towards eliminating unwarranted disparities and injecting transparency, certainty, and fairness into the sentencing process while promoting proportionate punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines

To accomplish these goals, the Sentencing Reform Act established the United Stated Sentencing Commission and charged it with devising a series of guidelines designed to help judges fine tune individual sentences within these vast statutory ranges. Today, the guidelines are essentially a matrix that assigns a base numeric value for each offense based on the Commission’s view as to its severity, referred to as the base offense level. The guidelines then add or subtract points to that numeric value based on factors such as how the offense was committed, any relevant characteristics of the victim (for offenses with a victim), a defendant’s role in the offense, or their behavior during the investigation or the pendency case – these adjustments then result in the final offense level. The guidelines then direct the evaluation of an individual’s criminal record in order to produce a numeric value that determines a defendant’s criminal history category, which range from category-I to category-VI. With these two numbers – the final offense level and the criminal history category, the guidelines’ sentencing table (with the six criminal history category columns, and the 43 final offense level rows) then gives a range of imprisonment, expressed in months. Sometimes that range may fall below or above an applicable minimum or maximum statutory sentence. In the interplay between a statutory sentencing range and a guideline sentencing range, the statutory limits would control a sentencing judge’s decision.

Advisory Nature of Guidelines and Judicial Discretion

It is important to note that the sentencing guidelines are merely an advisory aid to a sentencing judge, they are discretionary. At sentencing, the judge is required by law to consider the guidelines, but the judge is also required to consider a number of other factors in determining the final sentence including the history and characteristics of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of the offense. Certain facts are aggravating and others are mitigating. If one were to unnecessarily assault and injure an unarmed and vulnerable victim during the course of a robbery, this would be considered to be an aggravating factor that would be relied upon by a sentencing judge to impose a higher sentence. If, on the other hand, a disabled person were to have shoplifted from a grocery store to stave off starvation, this would be considered to be a mitigating factor that could be relied upon to advocate for a more lenient punishment.

The Sentencing Process and Defense Advocacy

At sentencing, the court first hears arguments from the defense and the government as to whether the guidelines were properly calculated. The court then hears argument and testimony (if any) from both sides as to the appropriate sentence in the case. Lastly, before deciding on the actual sentence, the court will offer the defendant an opportunity to directly address the court. With all of that in mind, a good presentation by an effective defense lawyer at sentencing would necessarily be the culmination of a months-long mitigation investigation that should be presented as a cogent and persuasive case to the effect that the client is less punishable than it would otherwise appear. Effective advocacy at the sentencing phase of a case could result in the difference between a sentence of probation and a decades-long term of imprisonment; and, in capital cases, it could mean the difference between an imprisonment term and a death sentence. In light of all of this, from the very first day of a criminal case, an effective defense attorney must begin to prepare for a possible sentencing hearing, by discovering and organizing any and all mitigating information that may serve to persuade a judge to be more lenient.

Representative Clients

United States v. L.K. (District of Connecticut Case Nos. 3:15-cr-214-AWT, and 3:16-cr-211-AWT). This was the case of a physician accused of writing prescriptions for amphetamines and alprazolam medications for purposes other than those for which the FDA had approved them. From the time of his initial arrest, the doctor’s representation situation resembled a carousel for attorneys in that six separate lawyers commenced, and promptly terminated, their representation with no progress in the case other than the unfortunate outcome of the doctor being denied bail and spending a number of months unnecessarily jailed in pretrial custody. A few weeks after I entered an appearance in the case, a satisfactory plea agreement was negotiated and executed. A few weeks later, at his sentencing hearing, the government aggressively advocated for a sentence that would have seen the doctor imprisoned for another four years. However, I built a mitigating presentation that succeeded in persuading the sentencing judge to impose a significantly lower sentence – one that essentially amounted to a time-served sentence from which the doctor was soon thereafter released.

United States v. A.F. (Southern District of Alabama Case No. 1:13-cr-143-WS). This was the case of an author who had fallen on hard times and had found himself grappling with substance abuse problems and homelessness. When local police found him in possession of a personal-use quantity of drugs while staying at a friend’s house, he was arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced for the drug offense in state court. Following his release from state prison, the federal government rearrested him for the same offense and added a felon in possession of a firearm charge accusing him of “constructive possession” of a firearm which was owned by the friend who had let my client stay at his house. The government’s theory of the case was that, notwithstanding the fact that my client had never so much as touched the unloaded shotgun in question, his mere presence in the same dwelling in which a firearm was located amounted to “constructive possession” because, in theory, he could have exercised control over the object had he chosen to do so. Following a trial of the case, including a lengthy and hotly-contested jury selection process, the trial jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to the gun charge which caused the government to dismiss that charge rather than attempt a retrial of the case. As a result, my client was promptly released from federal custody.

United States v. C.W. (Northern District of Georgia Case Nos. 1:11-cr-547; and 1:12-cr-80). This was the case of a U.S. government official who was charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, making false statements to a federal agency, and twelve counts of honest services mail fraud. My client was a recently retired claims adjuster for the Social Security Administration, and the essence of the prosecution’s case stemmed from the government’s mistaken belief – based on its misinterpretation of a large body of circumstantial evidence – that my client had conspired with an agency contractor that had in fact embezzled $4,000,000 in government funds belonging to thousands of homeless social security disability payees, and that my client had received kickbacks and bribes from the contractor in exchange for what the government viewed to be his official favorable actions. After a thorough investigation, I was able to build a defense case that eclipsed the government’s case in both scope and substance and that shed an entirely different light on the circumstantial case that the government would present at trial. In the end, after a four day jury trial, the trial jury returned its verdict of complete acquittal and my client walked out of the federal courthouse free, exonerated, and vindicated.

United States v. Puentes-Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2015). The government’s motion to dismiss the appeal was denied and the appellate court considered the merits of the appeal and held that conviction appeal waivers in plea agreements are inapplicable to claims of Rule 11 plea-colloquy error or ineffective assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal, and that sentence appeal waivers in plea agreements are inapplicable to claims asserting that the government breached a plea agreement at sentencing.

United States v. J.B. (Northern District of Georgia Case No. 1:11-cr-276, Closed 04/10/2012). Defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and the government had invoked a sentencing enhancement under Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. 924(e)) meaning that, if convicted, the defendant faced a minimum sentence of 15 years in federal prison. Given that parole had been abolished in the federal system decades ago, the stakes were high. Typically, proving a felon-in-possession case is relatively simple for prosecutors. The charge involves two elements, (1) that the defendant had a prior felony conviction; and (2) that the defendant possessed a firearm. The first element is usually satisfied by the admission of certified copies of a prior judgment of conviction. On this occasion, police officers, who had been following the defendant (while observing him carrying a bag), saw him enter the home of his girlfriend, a residence in which he would occasionally stay the night. Shortly after the defendant entered the home (carrying the bag in question), police saw him leave the home empty-handed. Convinced that the bag must have contained either drugs or guns or both, police immediately detained the defendant and placed him in the back of a police car. According to the police reports, the next thing that happened was that the homeowner (the defendant’s girlfriend) voluntarily spoke with police, and that she voluntarily consented to let them enter her home and search for the bag in question. The police reports then stated that upon searching an upstairs closet, police found the bag in question, which contained only a pistol (rather than the drugs which the police had anticipated finding). However, on the basis of the discovery of the pistol, and the defendant’s criminal record, federal prosecutors took up the case and charged the defedant with illegal firearms possession coupled with the 15-year minimum Armed Career Criminal enhancement. My investigation revealed that the police had lied about the defendant’s girlfriend having supposedly consented to allowing them to enter her home and search it without a warrant. In fact, they had surrounded her house while several officers relentlessly banged on her door for upwards of 10 minutes, all the while, they were threatening her with having her children taken away if she refused to “voluntarily” consent to let them enter and search her home. Eventually, she relented. At the outset of the case, I filed a motion to suppress the illegally obtained evidence (the bag and the pistol). Following extensive testimony from several police officers (whose cross-examination revealed so many inconsistencies in their testimony and between their testimony and their reports) and testimony from the occupants of the home, the court easily found that the police offers’ testimony, and the contents of their police reports, were not belivable. The court granted the motion to suppress the the evidence in the case (the bag and the pistol), and without that evidence, the government was forced to dismiss the case.

United States v. N.L. (Northern District of Georgia Case No. 1:11-cr-407, Closed 03/05/2012). The defendant and her mother were charged with assaulting a federal agent (in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111). When the defendant and her mother were involved in a traffic accident with a Deputy United States Marshal, the situation quickly escalated into a physical fight. The government alleged that the ladies had assaulted the deputy while he was “engaged in his official duties,” which was an essential element of federal jurisdiction (that is, it was what would make the case federal rather than a simple assault in violation of state law). Shortly before trial on the matter (which was to be defended on grounds that the Marshal had gone outside the scope of his duties – known in the law of agency as “a frolic” – and, that he had in fact violated a written government policy in attempting to investigate his own auto accident) the government offered the defendant a diversionary dismissal of the case, a resolution which she accepted, and the case was dismissed.

United States v. F.A. (Northern District of Georgia Case No. 1:11-cr-10, Closed 05/10/2012). Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute more than a half a kilogram of cocaine. In this case, I eventually secured a negotiated disposition that was mutually agreeable to my client and to the government. Under the deal I negotiated, the defendant, an undocumented immigrant, who was originally charged with a major drug trafficking offense, was eventually paroled into the United States, given a work-visa, and put onto the path to citizenship. The defendant was a house-sitter for a stash house that was violently robbed one night. Although he was a victim of the robbery, he was somehow charged in state court with possession of a very specific quantity of drugs (more than 500 grams) that no one ever saw, and that may not have even existed; and he was induced (by state and federal authorities) to cooperate with the robbery investigation and to tender a baseless plea to drug trafficking in state court in exchange for avoiding a federal prosecution. He held up his end of that bargain but the U.S. Attorney nevertheless secured a federal indictment — and, a federal indictment that relied upon a quantity of drugs (more than 500 grams) that would trigger a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison. In response these events, I prepared and filed a barrage of pretrial motions including a motion unseal the grand jury transcripts, a motion to dismiss the indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury (given that the quantity of cocaine that was alleged in the indictment was either pure fiction or the product of rank speculation by prosecutors rather than a matter of fact), as well as a motion to dismiss the indictment based on the doctrine of “equitable immunity” (supported by an affidavit from his state-court attorney to the effect that federal prosecutors had promised the defendant immunity). Rather than respond to the motions, the government engaged in resolution discussions and the the negotiated resolution was ultimately that the government would offer the defendant immigration status in the United States in exchange for his second plea, as well as a time-served sentence.

United States v. J.V.L. (Northern District of Georgia Case No. 1:11-cr-95, Closed 08/03/2011). Defendant was charged with illegal reentry into the United States by an aggravated felon. He had been previously deported from the United States several times. Between the deportations, he had been convicted of drunken driving on five occasions, and had two prior drug distribution convictions as well. His advisory sentencing guideline range, following his latest plea to having entered the United States again without permission, was a 10-year imprisonment term. The government aggressively solicited the 10-year sentence; however, on hearing extensive testimony that the defendant had fallen in love with an American woman – a lady who was a longtime care-giver for elderly patients, as well as testimony that he had spent nearly the entirety of the previous several years at the bedside of dozens of elderly patients, including a retired policeman, while helping to feed and bathe them, the judge found that the good he had done for the community far outweighed the harm associated repeatedly violating the immigration laws, with 5 episodes of drunken driving, and with two episodes of drug distribution, choosing instead to only impose a 2-year term of imprisonment.

United States v. D.G. (Northern District of Georgia Case No. 1:11-cr-256, Closed 03/20/2012). In this case, the Defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana (in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B)) and with a conspiracy to conceal proceeds of unlawful activity (in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956). After pleading guilty, the defendant walked into his sentencing hearing facing an advisory sentencing range in excess of 20-years imprisonment (largely on the basis of an extensive prior criminal record). At the sentencing hearing, however, as result of a months-long mitigation investigation and after an extensive evidentiary presentation with live testimony from a host of people that had quite literally filled the courtroom to support the defendant, the judge rejected the government’s arguments and only imposed a 3-year term of imprisonment (much of which had already been served on pretrial confinement).

United States v. W.J.A. (Northern District of Georgia Case No. 1:11-cr-94, Closed 12/06/2011). Defendant, who had an extensive criminal history, was charged as a participant in a large-scale conspiracy to distribute marijuana. On this occasion, he found himself working, for a paltry sum, as a front-man and courier for a high-end marijuana distribution operation in Atlanta. Namely, his boss at a hair salon used him as the signatory on a post office box and as the delivery person for large marijuana shipments that periodically arrived from out of state. At sentencing, the defendant was exposed to an advisory 3-year term of imprisonment where both of his more culpable co-defendants, though without any criminal history, were in the probation range. On the heels of a compelling sentencing presentation, and after continuing the already-underway sentencing hearing twice, and after finally agreeing that the defendant’s lifestyle, appearance, and demeanor would subject him to certain victimization in prison – over the government’s vociferous objections – the judge first sentenced my client to probation, and when it was later discovered that probation was not even authorized for this offense under the law, he was re-sentenced to time-served, that being the 3 hours he had spent in the courthouse lockup before being given bail at the beginning of the case. Thus, my client faced a three year sentence, and in the end he served no more than 3 hours.

R.B. v. State (Circuit Court for Houston County, Alabama, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Case No. CR-07-0051, 2007-2009). Through a motion to reconsider, I convinced an Alabama state-court judge, the same judge who had presided over my client’s capital murder conviction and who had sentenced him to death, to reconsider his earlier decision to deny post-conviction habeas corpus relief because I had made a showing that indicated that a recording of my client’s interrogation may have been doctored and that his confession may have been coerced. Also, at a later phase in that litigation, my appellate briefing convinced the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to reverse the lower court’s denial of a jury misconduct claim.