Atlanta Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Readers-you all know that I specialize in federal criminal defense, and handle investigations and defend against actual federal criminal prosecutions here in Atlanta and throughout the United States.  Today, I am plowing through some “discovery” materials, and that caused me to reflect on the changes to this part of my practice during my 40 plus years of defending clients against the “Feds.”

Federal law requires that the Government provide certain materials to the Defendant and his or her attorney.  Some people call this the “evidence” but it is both broader and more narrow than that.

By law, the Feds have to give the Defendant all documents, physical evidence, and any expert testing that the prosecutor intends to use during a trial.  Note that the last line said nothing about what the witnesses say.  Under the law, the federal prosecutor can hold back the witness statements until the actual trial, which is, obviously, grossly unfair.  In addition, Government also needs to hand over any “Brady” material, which means anything tending to show that then Defendant is not guilty.

Friends (the 6 of you out there): you know that I am a criminal defense lawyer here in Atlanta, Georgia who specializes in defending people against federal criminal investigations and actual prosecutions.  I also handle cases throughout the country.  Many clients decide that their better option is to plead guilty.  Recently I met with a young man in the U.S. Military who decided to plead guilty, and we discussed some of the little things he can do to make the process go more smoothly, all with the goal of trying to convince the federal judge to impose the most lenient sentence possible.

TIP NUMBER ONE-dress appropriately.  I know, sounds simple, but we are trying to impress the Judge, and first impressions do matter.  Dress as if you are attending a religious service, a wedding or a similar formal event.  Avoid flashy jewelry and makeup.  When possible, cover tattoos with long sleeves, etc.

TIP NUMBER TWO-be prepared to admit you are guilty.  This one is often difficult, and goes against the grain for many people.  We are naturally reluctant to admit to our mistakes, especially in front of a Judge, but my experience over the many years is that clients who end up with the best sentences are the ones who clearly and honestly admit upfront that they screwed up and committed a crime.

Friends-I just returned from the federal courthouse in beautiful Atlanta, Georgia on this late March day where I helped my client navigate through his Initial Appearance on a federal criminal matter.  I have been doing these hearings for over 40 years,  but they are always a bit nerve-wracking for clients who have never been through the process.

The first stop is a hearing in front of a U.S. Magistrate Judge.  Today was a good assignment, the very capable Judge was a former protege, I helped her try her first federal criminal case in this District many years ago.  All Magistrates inform the accused person of the charges against them and their rights.  The Magistrate then tells the person about the process going forward, he or she goes over bail options and a few other standard details such as assigning the case to another Judge for further proceedings.  Much of the time we work out the bail package ahead of time.  Today was no different, and my client merely had to sign an “unsecured bond”, meaning he and his family did not need to put up any money or property to secure his release on bail.

Next stop: the U.S. Marshal Service for “processing.  This part is sometimes the most scary for clients, in that I surrender them to a Deputy Marshal who takes the accused person back into a “lockup  facility”, which has cells, bars and inmates in handcuffs and ankle chains.  The Marshal Service then takes photographs and fingerprints, and runs one final computer check to make sure there are no “holds” or “detainers” on my client.  Today, the Deputy was very cool with my client, who is only 23 years old. The Deputy came out and explained that he told my client about what it is like back there for the people in cuffs and chains, and the Deputy said he hopes to never see my client again.

Pollen fills the air here in beautiful Atlanta, Georgia where I am a criminal defense attorney who specializes in federal criminal cases, both pre-trial investigations as well as trials and appeals.  Pollen means we see beautiful flowering bushes and  trees, but getting a federal grand jury subpoena will make many business people sneeze uncontrollably.

Two members of a family hired me because several of their companies received grand jury subpoenas.  Their experience is rather usual, so I’ll explain  few things just to remind readers about the pitfalls that can happen when such subpoenas are handed out.

First, a grand jury subpoena can be an order to produce documents, to come give testimony before the grand jury, or both.  The first thing to remember is that no one has to provide a defense against him or herself, so anyone getting such a subpoena should go immediately to a reputable criminal defense attorney who knows the ins and outs of federal practice.

Happy Monday morning my wonderful readers.  Those of you who have encountered my posts before know that I am a criminal defense lawyer in Atlanta, Georgia, and that I specialize in representing people if they are being investigated for or actually face prosecution related to a federal crime.

I just finished meeting with a client.  We discussed many things related to his case and his life (I am one of those lawyers who simply enjoy getting to know much more about my clients beyond than the matter which  brings them to my office).  Along the way, he and I talked through the two biggest decisions in any criminal case.

DECISION NUMBER ONE: trial versus guilty plea (or other alternative resolution).  This is often the toughest decision, and is based on  the  evidence (obviously), the potential penalties, the complexity of a trial, plus a myriad of other factors. Some lawyers who have lesser trial experience subtly shade their recommendation so that their client is less likely to seek a trial.  I think that is a mistaken way to approach the trial/plea decision.  I have tried approximately 100 federal criminal cases of all types, and I relish the courtroom experience!  However, I always remind clients that while I personally enjoy the courtroom battle, it is their life and future on the line so my  enjoyment of the experience is completely beside the point.  The decision is completely up to the client in the long run, I simply make my professional recommendation.

I am an attorney who represents people being prosecuted for federal crimes; my office is here in Atlanta, Georgia but I handle matters in federal courts all around the United States.  Today I am working on two cases where we are fighting with the prosecution over the conditions under which my clients are release from custody while the case moves forward.  As many people know, being released is sometimes called being out “on bail” or “on bond.”  Being released means the person gets out of jail after an initial arrest and is allowed to live and work at home while still defending against the federal criminal case.

The current law on being out on bond stems from a 1984 Act which was part of a huge Crime Bill that year.  The part of the law regarding pretrial release was called the “Bail Reform Act of 1984.”  That law now allows a Judge to hold or “detain” a criminal Defendant with no bail at all if the Court determines that the person is either a “danger to the community” or a “risk of flight.”

In several of my current cases I got my client released on bond, but am still tussling with the prosecutors over some of the conditions imposed on my clients during their time out on bail.  This is somewhat common.  We get our client released at the beginning of the case by agreeing to some rather stringent and strict conditions.  As the case drags on we try to convince prosecutors (and the Court) that the harsh condition is no longer needed months and sometimes years after the person was originally released on bail.

I am an attorney who represents people being prosecuted for federal crimes; my office is here in Atlanta, Georgia but I handle matters in federal courts all around the United States.  Today I am working on two cases where we are fighting with the prosecution over the conditions under which my clients are release from custody while the case moves forward.  As many people know, being released is sometimes called being out “on bail” or “on bond.”  Being released means the person gets out of jail after an initial arrest and is allowed to live and work at home while still defending against the federal criminal case.

The current law on being out on bond stems from a 1984 Act which was part of a huge Crime Bill that year.  The part of the law regarding pretrial release was called the “Bail Reform Act of 1984.”  That law now allows a Judge to hold or “detain” a criminal Defendant with no bail at all if the Court determines that the person is either a “danger to the community” or a “risk of flight.”

In several of my current cases I got my client released on bond, but am still tussling with the prosecutors over some of the conditions imposed on my clients during their time out on bail.  This is somewhat common.  We get our client released at the beginning of the case by agreeing to some rather stringent and strict conditions.  As the case drags on we try to convince prosecutors (and the Court) that the harsh condition is no longer needed months and sometimes years after the person was originally released on bail.

OK Team, those six of you who read this, we are in the cold winter  months, the perfect time to prepare for a “proffer session” involving one of my clients who is facing a federal criminal prosecution.  Casual (and even those wearing formal wear) readers know I have posted about this subject several times, here, here, and yes, over here.

A “proffer” is when a criminal Defendant (or someone under investigation yet not currently charged) goes to see prosecutors and federal agents to give his or her version of what really happened in a case.  Often, the proffer is preceded by an “attorney proffer”, during which the person’s attorney gives prosecutors an outline of what his or her client will likely say during the later session when the accused person comes to the office to talk.  As I have written about before, these can be both valuable, and are simultaneously dangerous.

Today I met with a prosecutor ahead of the formal proffer.  This particular prosecutor truly wants to make this case move forward and resolve short of a trial or contested sentencing hearing.  Sensing that, I pushed a bit harder than I normally do, and essentially asked him to give me an outline of what the agents will ask of my client when I bring that person in for the formal proffer session.  It seemed to work.  By the end of the meeting I had more a less a roadmap of what they want my client to say (assuming it is the truth, of course) after which we should be on the road to resolve the matter more favorably to my client (and his family).