Atlanta Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

It has been the usual gorgeous Spring weather here in Atlanta, where I now do most of my work from home while representing clients facing federal criminal prosecutions and investigations.  Although I rarely venture into the office now, my firm has been able to keep up with all of our cases and maintain the work of helping our clients who face cases in federal courts throughout the country.  I have also learned (and remembered) a few lessons while in this new situation.

One lesson came from a case where I  represented a client who pled guilty to a federal economic crime.  We had one of the last “in-person” sentencing hearings in federal court just before all the courts closed down.   We convinced the Judge to impose a sentence well below what the prosecutor asked for, and well beneath the range suggested by my sometime nemesis, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The case reminded me that a better-than-expected result in a federal case where the client pleads guilty depends on many factors, but the lawyer needs to focus on two areas to achieve this.  First, the attorney needs to do whatever he or she can to maneuver the dreaded Guidelines into the best position possible under the circumstances.  Second, the lawyer then needs to get especially creative when trying to convince the Judge to impose a sentence below those same Guidelines.  In this particular case I had to juggle a series of areas to come up with a combination of reasons why the Judge should do what I was asking of her.  So, that recent lesson reminded me:  the lawyer’s work is far from over when the client decides to plead guilty, for that is often the point when the attorney can make the greatest impact and salvage the best result under the circumstances.

Another lesson I learned is that a “virtual meeting” is merely a substitute for an in-person consultation.  I have a new matter where my client and I have had many calls, but have not met fact-to-face because of the shutdown.  After many discussions, I came to realize that I had misunderstood a crucial detail.  It likely would have been cleared up much earlier if we would have been able to meet in person.  I am glad we figured out that particular miscommunication, but the lesson is obvious: it will be much easier to do my job properly after I can again meet clients in person.

I recently did a post about three “quirky” federal crimes I sometimes can use when trying to negotiate a “deal” for my clients facing a criminal case in federal court, often in Atlanta but many times in other parts of the country.  While these three are real crimes and sometimes are used to resolve a case, there are other federal crimes that are, to be blunt, stupid.

Some of these laws are found in the US Code.  Others are based on regulations issued by various federal department.  When combined with prosecutors who are rarely restrained by the courts, these laws may sound funny but actually represent potential dangers to all of us. Continue reading

Hello Sports Fans, Paul Kish here, just returned from U.S. District Court here in rainy Atlanta, Georgia where we had a pretrial evidentiary hearing in yet another federal criminal case.  I’ve done many hundreds, if not thousands, of these in my career, and I’d like to provide a few observations about these hearings that happen in some federal criminal cases.

First, we do not have these hearings in every case.  Instead, Judges will convene one of these hearings only when the Court needs some evidence in order to rule on a pretrial issue brought up by one side or the other.  Most of these hearings relate to pretrial motions filed by a Defendant, such as a Motion to Suppress.  However, other cases involve pretrial pleadings by the prosecutor who requests a ruling that certain evidence should either admitted or kept out of the trial in the case.  For example, one time we had a lengthy hearing where the Government asked the Judge to prohibit our expert witness from testifying at the upcoming trial.  The trial Judge ruled for the prosecution, yet in the end we basically won when the Court of Appeals saw the issue our way and reversed all convictions because of the improper exclusion or our expert witness. Continue reading

It’s a New Year in Atlanta, and I am doing my usual work on federal criminal cases, criminal appeals, post-conviction matters and whatever else that my clients need that can help with their various situations.  One of today’s tasks is to schedule a “proffer” session for one of my clients who has been charged with federal fraud crimes.  While working on the relatively mundane job of scheduling a proffer session, I started thinking about how many clients, and even some attorneys, really do not fully understand what a proffer is, how it can help, and more importantly, how it can be a bloody disaster if not handled correctly.

A “proffer” is when a lawyer takes his or her client over to meet with federal prosecutors and investigators for a question and answer session.  This session is never something that the client is obligated to do, it is totally his or her choice, after of course consulting with well-trained legal counsel.  The proffer is kind of like the test-drive when considering a certain car at an automobile dealership.  The driver is not obligated to buy the car, the seller has no duty to sell, both sides are trying to learn more in determining whether they want to reach some agreement down the road. Continue reading

Another gorgeous early winter day in beautiful Atlanta, Georgia, and I am preparing to assist a client who will be interviewed soon as part of the preparation of the Presentence Investigation Report.  For any of you somewhat unaware of this process (the six of you know who you are), here is a short primer explaining this crucial document that is part of a federal criminal case.  I also want to discuss how an accused person’s attorney needs to help the Defendant navigate through this process.

Whether the Defendant is found guilty after a jury trial, or decides after consulting with counsel that the best course is to plead guilty, the next major step in court will be the sentencing hearing.  The Federal Judge generally will time that sentencing hearing to happen 2-3 months down the road.  In the interim, the United States Probation Officer (the “USPO”) assigned to the matter needs to prepare the important Presentence Investigation Report (sometimes referred to as the “PSR”). Continue reading