Gupta to Urge Probation From Judge Who Once Defended Insiders

October 22, 2012

San Francisco Chronicle on October 22, 2012 released the following:

“Patricia Hurtado and David Glovin, ©2012 Bloomberg News

Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) — As a lawyer, Jed Rakoff once persuaded a judge to give probation to a client convicted at an insider-trading trial alongside former Wall Street Journal reporter R. Foster Winans. Now a federal judge himself, Rakoff must weigh Rajat Gupta’s similar request to stay out of prison.

Gupta, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. director, will come before Rakoff in Manhattan federal court on Oct. 24 to be sentenced for leaking stock tips to Galleon Group LLC co-founder Raj Rajaratnam. Prosecutors say Gupta, convicted by a jury in June, deserves as long as 10 years in prison. Gupta seeks probation.

Gary Naftalis, a lawyer for Gupta, argued his client’s crime was an “aberrational” event in a “lifetime of good works” that merited a punishment for a man who has suffered an extraordinary fall from grace. He asked Rakoff to impose a term of community service, suggesting Gupta work with troubled youth in New York or with the poor in Rwanda.

“Good works help, but on their own they are rarely a ‘Get out of jail free card,’” said Gordon Mehler, a former federal prosecutor who’s now in private practice in New York. “So, it seems as if probation, even in Rwanda, is unlikely.”

Gupta, 63, is the most prominent of 70 people convicted since a nationwide insider-trading crackdown by U.S. prosecutors began four years ago. Gupta also served as managing partner of McKinsey & Co. from 1994 to 2003 and on the board of Procter & Gamble Co. from 2007 to March 2011, when he also resigned from the boards of Goldman Sachs, AMR Corp. and two other companies.

Buffett’s Berkshire

After a four-week trial in June, jurors found Gupta guilty of tipping Rajaratnam about dealings at New York-based Goldman Sachs, including a $5 billion investment by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Rajaratnam, 55, is serving 11 years in prison for trading on tips from Gupta and others.

In his 17 years as a judge, Rakoff has sentenced at least nine defendants for insider trading, including seven who pleaded guilty and two whom he jailed after they were found guilty by juries. Rakoff has a track record of imposing a sentence that is half what the government recommends.

“If there is any judge who’s sensitive to the draconian impact of the sentencing guidelines with respect to white-collar offenders, it’s Judge Rakoff,” said J. Bruce Maffeo, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice. “That being said, he’s equally sensitive to the need to fashion a sentence that takes into account both the defendant’s personal background and the need to deter others in the financial world, where this kind of activity appears to be more prevalent than previously assumed.”

Winning Leniency

Rakoff, a former federal prosecutor in New York who headed the office’s securities-fraud unit, was a white-collar criminal- defense lawyer before taking the bench.

As a defense lawyer, Rakoff won leniency for a client convicted of insider trading who was also facing prison.

Rakofff’s client, David Carpenter, went on trial in 1985 with his lover, journalist R. Foster Winans, and broker Kenneth Felis. Prosecutors said Winans leaked tips to Felis about forthcoming market-moving articles in his “Heard on the Street” column, Felis traded on the news and Carpenter allowed Winans to place trades through his account. All were convicted. Carpenter died in 1991.

Wife, Husband

At the sentencing, Rakoff compared Carpenter’s relationship with Winans to that of wife-and-husband and said Carpenter merely acquiesced to Winans’ trades, according to Winans’s lawyer, Don Buchwald. Carpenter got probation while Winans was given an 18-month prison term.

“He was following Foster,” Buchwald said in a phone interview last week. “Carpenter was a very sympathetic figure.”

This week, Gupta will be seeking sympathy of a different sort from Rakoff. Gupta’s lawyer, Naftalis, said in a court filing that Gupta deserves probation because his crime was an aberration in a life “defined by helping others.”

Naftalis cited Gupta’s work as chairman of the Global Fund, an initiative to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, as well as his work with the United Nations to improve world health. Naftalis declined to comment on a comparison of the Gupta and Carpenter cases. The defense submitted more than 400 letters to the judge describing Gupta’s accomplishments.

In their pre-sentencing court filings, prosecutors gave a different portrait of Gupta and asked Rakoff to consider the personal relationship between Gupta and Rajaratnam.

‘Very Close Friend’

In asking for a term of 97 months to 121 months, which they say are called for by U.S. sentencing guidelines, prosecutors say Gupta violated confidences and breached his duty as a senior corporate official by leaking news to his “very close friend” and business partner.

“Gupta’s interests often were aligned with those of Rajaratnam and Galleon such that Gupta stood to benefit if Galleon was successful,” prosecutors wrote in a filing, citing Gupta’s investment in Galleon and their partnership in another investment fund.

Richard Holwell, the former federal judge who presided over Rajaratnam’s trial and sentenced the fund manager, said judges consider “general deterrence,” or whether the sentence they impose will deter others from committing similar crimes.

“The nature and circumstances of the crime weigh in the government’s favor, because insider trading is a serious white- collar crime that undermines the integrity of the markets” said Holwell, who is now in private practice.

Deterrence

“The government will lean on general deterrence because insider trading has to be eradicated and one way to do that is by taking highly visible cases and making examples of them,” Holwell said. “That will weigh heavily on Rakoff.”

Other criminal defense lawyers said Gupta’s fall from grace may work in his favor. Kevin O’Brien, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said the judge must weigh Gupta’s achievements against his crimes.

“There is human drama there,” O’Brien said. “You can make the argument that for a guy like this who was on top of the world to have fallen so low and to have been so humiliated and exposed by a lengthy public trial, that is punishment enough.”

“What is smart about the Rwanda option is that it makes vivid Gupta’s commitment to public service and brings out with some clarity his history of good deeds,” he said. “It’s a creative approach.”

‘Mirage’ Guidelines

Federal sentencing guidelines are advisory. Rakoff’s history has been one of imposing sentences well below the recommended federal guidelines, which he has called a “mirage of something that can be obtained with arithmetic certainty.”

Last year, he sentenced James Fleishman, a former executive at expert-networking firm Primary Global Research LLC, to 2 1/2 years in prison for passing tips to fund managers while the guidelines called for more than seven years. He also ordered Primary Global consultant Winifred Jiau to serve 48 months for selling information. Her guidelines suggested a term of 78 months to 97 months in prison.

Still, Rakoff has rarely been silent about the contempt he has for insider traders, often expressing his sentiments in open court. In Fleishman’s case, he said insider prosecutions over “the last 30 or 40 years” have not “done enough to deter this serious and sophisticated crime.”

With Jiau, whose scheme ran for two years, he said the leaks undermined “the integrity of the financial markets” and demanded a “meaningful sentence.”

Maffeo said he believes Rakoff will impose some term of incarceration upon Gupta.

Love Families

Rakoff has demanded prison in cases in which, unlike Gupta, the defendants have admitted trafficking in illicit information. He sentenced ex-SAC Capital Advisors LP manager Donald Longueuil to 30 months instead of the 46 months to 57 months urged by the guidelines. He ordered a former Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. manager to spend 18 months behind bars.

“Why is it that defendants always remember how much they love their families after they’ve committed the crimes that place that relationship in jeopardy?” Rakoff said at the sentencing of former Galleon trader Adam Smith, who won probation largely because he cooperated with prosecutors and testified against Rajaratnam.

Rakoff imposed an 18-month prison term on Manosha Karunatilaka, a former Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. manager who pleaded guilty to passing nonpublic information about his company’s orders to fund managers as part of an insider-trading scheme. Karunatilaka cooperated with the U.S. and accepted responsibility for his crimes.

Crying Infant

As Karunatilaka’s infant child cried in the courtroom, Rakoff rejected a bid by defense lawyer Brad Bailey to impose a term of six months’ in prison and six months of home confinement.

Gupta, after two days of deliberations by a jury, was found guilty of three counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy. The tips came in September and October 2008 and concerned Buffett’s $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs and the bank’s losses in the fourth quarter of 2008.

Jurors acquitted Gupta of charges that he leaked information that Cincinnati-based P&G’s organic sales growth would fall below estimates and that he tipped Rajaratnam about Goldman Sachs’s earnings in the first quarter of 2007.

In his filing, Naftalis argued that Gupta deserves leniency because his crimes were limited to a two-month period in 2008.

Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit, said Rakoff will focus on the nature of the crime and Gupta’s background. Henning predicted that the former Goldman Sachs director will get a prison term of two years to three years.

“That’s not a deleterious prison term, but it is prison and it doesn’t mean he will get a free pass,” Henning said in a phone interview. “It has to be a term to get everyone’s attention, and by everyone, I mean Wall Street.”

The case is U.S. v. Gupta, 11-cr-00907, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Stanford Should Get 230-Year Term in Ponzi Scheme, U.S. Says

June 7, 2012

San Francisco Chronicle on June 6, 2012 released the following:

“Laurel Brubaker Calkins,

June 6 (Bloomberg) — Convicted Ponzi scheme operator R. Allen Stanford should be sentenced to the maximum allowable term of 230 years in prison, federal prosecutors argued in court papers.

Stanford, who the government said is seeking a sentence of “time served,” is to be sentenced next week in U.S. District Court in Houston.

“Robert Allen Stanford is a ruthless predator responsible for one of the most egregious frauds in history,” the Justice Department said in a 34-page filing. “Displaying an audacity that only further illustrates his depravity, Stanford seeks a sentence of time served, brazenly arguing that there are no losses” and rehashing arguments rejected by the jury that convicted him in March.

Stanford, 62, was found guilty of defrauding more than 20,000 investors through the sale of what the government called bogus certificates of deposit at his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. A court-appointed receiver marshalling the ex-billionaire’s assets has located less than $500 million in cash and assets that can be used to repay investors.

Stanford’s own sentencing recommendation was filed under seal. Prosecutors said he asked U.S. District Judge David Hittner for leniency, in part because he is a first-time offender.

Stripped of Assets

Stanford also denied that investors suffered any losses while he was running Stanford Financial Group and “complains that he was stripped of all his assets,” by the government, prosecutors said.

The recommended 230 years is at the top of the range of sentences for Stanford’s crime under federal guidelines, the prosecutors said in the filing.

“Nothing speaks more eloquently of Stanford’s character than his sentencing arguments in this case,” the Justice Department lawyers wrote. “After everything that he has done to so many innocent victims, Stanford does not show a hint of remorse for his misconduct, only the same arrogant, narcissistic behavior that led to it.”

Stanford has been incarcerated as a flight risk since his indictment in June 2009. He was charged about three months after U.S. securities regulators seized his companies on suspicion they were a “massive” Ponzi scheme, in which late-arriving investors’ funds were used to pay earlier investors.

Stanford’s Sentence Request

Stanford’s lawyers have requested a prison sentence of 31 to 44 months, prosecutors said.

Robert A. Scardino, one of Stanford’s criminal-defense lawyers, said by phone that his side is “hoping for the best and preparing for the worst” at the June 14 sentencing. Scardino declined to comment further, citing a court order not to speak publicly about the case.

A Justice Department spokeswoman, Alisa Finelli, didn’t immediately reply to e-mail or voice messages seeking comment on the filing.

The case is U.S. v. Stanford, 4:09-cr-0342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Supreme Court: Lawyers must do a good job on plea bargains

March 21, 2012

The Associated Press on March 21, 2012 released the following:

“Court: Lawyers must do good job on plea bargains

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday laid out new standards for criminal plea bargains, saying defense lawyers must do a competent job advising and informing their clients of prosecutors’ offers of less prison time for convictions and guilty pleas.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a rare move, dissented aloud from the bench, calling the decisions “absurd” and warning courts would be flooded with appeals from criminals now claiming their plea bargain rights were violated, despite the fact that there is no legal right to a plea bargain.

“The court today embraces the sporting chance theory of criminal law, in which the state functions like a conscientious casino operator, giving each player a fair chance to beat the house, that is, serve less time than the law says he deserves. And when a player is excluded from the tables, his constitutional rights have been violated,” Scalia said. “I do not subscribe to that theory. No one should, least of all justices of the Supreme Court.”

The two opinions, both written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, have the potential to affect thousands of criminal cases with the Justice Department reporting that 97 percent of federal convictions and 94 percent of state convictions in 2009 were the result of a guilty plea.

The decisions laid out by Kennedy means that criminal defense lawyers are now required to inform their clients of plea bargain offers, regardless of whether they think the client should accept them, and must give their clients good advice on whether to accept a plea bargain at all stages of prosecution. If they don’t, Kennedy said, they will run afoul of the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel during criminal proceedings.

“The right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel,” Kennedy said.

In the cases before the court, Galin Edward Frye was never told by his lawyer about plea bargain offers from Missouri before he pleaded guilty to driving with a revoked license before his trial. In the second case, Blaine Lafler rejected a plea offer on the advice of his lawyer, and then was convicted of assault with intent to murder and other charges and sentenced after a jury trial in Michigan.

In both cases, Kennedy sent the convictions back down to the lower courts because the actions of the lawyers.

“This court now holds that, as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused,” Kennedy said. “… When the defense counsel allowed the offer to expire without advising the defendant or allowing him to consider it, defense counsel did not render the effective assistance the Constitution requires.”

In the second case, “if a plea bargain has been offered, a defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel in considering whether to accept it,” Kennedy said. “If that right is denied, prejudice can be shown if loss of the plea opportunity led to a trial resulting in a conviction on more serious charges or the imposition of a more severe sentence.”

Kennedy was joined in both opinions by the court’s liberals, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

In Frye’s case, a lower court will have to decide whether prosecutors would have been required to stick to their offer to Frye, because he was rearrested on the same charge of driving with a revoked license less than a week before his preliminary hearing.

Frye’s August 2007 arrest was his fourth on the same charge, so he was charged with a felony that had a maximum sentence of four years. Missouri prosecutors originally offered Frye two deals, including pleading to a misdemeanor with a sentence recommendation of three months. With no knowledge of that offer, Frye ended up entering a guilty plea and was given three years in prison.

Cooper was arrested after shooting a woman in the buttocks, hip and abdomen in 2003. He was charged with assault with intent to murder and three other charges, but was offered a deal where prosecutors would drop two of the charges and recommend a maximum of 85 months in prison. But Cooper’s lawyer told him to reject the deal, saying incorrectly that the prosecutors couldn’t prove murder because he had shot the woman below the waist. He did, and was sentenced to a maximum of 30 years in prison.

Kennedy said Michigan prosecutors should offer Cooper his plea bargain for a prison term of around seven years again, with a lower court judge ruling on whether to vacate some or all of his convictions, or do nothing about his 15-to-30 year sentence.

That concerned Justice Samuel Alito, a former U.S. attorney in New Jersey.

“In my view, requiring the prosecution to renew an old plea offer would represent an abuse of discretion in at least two circumstances: first, when important new information about a defendant’s culpability comes to light after the offer was rejected, and second, when the rejection of the plea offer results in a substantial expenditure of scarce prosecutorial or judicial resources,” said Alito, who wrote a separate dissent in that case.

Scalia was joined in full or in part in both dissents by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas. Alito joined Scalia’s dissent in the Frye case. Scalia noted that prosecutors were being punished by having their cases go back to court, when it was the defense lawyers who made the errors.

“In today’s cases, the court’s zeal to bring perfection to everything requires the reversal of perfectly valid, eminently just convictions,” Scalia said. “It is not wise; it is not right.”

The cases are Missouri v. Frye, 10-444 and Lafler v. Cooper, 10-209.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

Federal Mail Fraud Crimes

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Was Anonymous’ Hacker-Informant Sabu A Tool Of FBI Entrapment?

March 7, 2012

Forbes on March 7, 2012 released the following:

“Andy Greenberg, Forbes Staff

In a typical criminal conspiracy takedown, lower-level minions are flipped to inform on a crime syndicate’s boss. But in the investigation of LulzSec, the hacker splinter group that broke off from Anonymous last summer, the FBI seems to have found a snitch in none other than the conspiracy’s ringleader and organizer, the 28-year-old hacker known as Sabu.

Which raises a strange question: As the FBI worked to take down the radical hacktivist group over the last months, was it also egging it on?

Yesterday it was revealed that Hector Xavier Monsegur, the alleged hacker known as Sabu, had been acting as a government informant since as early as last June, helping to provide the FBI with information that led to three more arrests of alleged LulzSec-related hackers yesterday, along with new charges against two of the other related defendants. The help of the Spanish-speaking Monsegur may have even aided the arrest of 25 other alleged members of Anonymous in Spain and South America late last month.

But criminal defense lawyers for those accused hackers are no doubt poring over his communications with their clients, and looking for evidence of entrapment: the defense that the U.S. government, with an influential member of Anonymous as their pawn, pushed hackers into the same illegal acts for which they’re now prosecuting them.

Months after Monsegur began cooperating with law enforcement, his Twitter feed (with 45,000 followers) continued to rally his hacktivist “brothers” to attack governments and private corporate targets. A message he wrote in late December asked for fellow hackers to give him stolen documents so that they could be published under the banner of “Antisec,” the sub-movement against the security industry in which he was a vocal organizer. “Leakers, security researchers or hackers who have vulnerabilities or leaked docs contact us,” Monsegur wrote.

After the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists in January, he called for hacking attacks on Israel. “Since #israel started the week by blowing up Iranian nuclear scientists – how about we focus on disrupting their infrastructure?” he wrote to his followers.

As recently as last month, Monsegur was inciting attacks on Interpol in retaliation for arrests of his fellow anons. “Hackers of the world: Interpol has declared war on hackers,” he wrote. “Time to strike back. Infiltrate.” The denial of service attack on Interpol’s website that followed took the site down for around half an hour.“

And perhaps most significantly, Monsegur seems to have taken an active part in the attack on the private intelligence think tank Stratfor, whose millions of stolen emails are now being released by WikiLeaks. In fact, the indictment of 27-year old Chicagoan Jeremy Hammond, unsealed Tuesday, states that an informant under the name Cooperative Witness One or “CW-1″ in New York convinced Hammond to move stolen Stratfor data to a server that the informant provided. Given that there are no other indicted members of LulzSec in New York, CW-1 is no doubt Monsegur.

In other conversations between Monsegur and Hammond included in the indictment–and there’s no telling what Monsegur may have said that wasn’t quote by prosecutors–Monsegur explicitly encourages illegal hacking and disclosure of stolen info.

“Wanna release that list of 92% cracked Stratfor hashes?” he asks Hammond at one point. Hammond replies to Monsegur that it’s “Your call.”

“If I get raided anarchaos your job is to cause havok in my honor,” Monsegur tells Hammond later, using one of the hacker’s pseudonyms.

“It shall be so,” Hammond responds.

Whether this kind of encouragement and support for illegal hacking rises to the level of entrapment, however, is far from clear, says Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Hanni Fakhoury. The legal definition of entrapment hinges on two separate issues: Inducement and predisposition. To meet the “inducement” requirement, the government must be actively “authorizing, directing or supervising” the defendant’s criminal behavior. And to pass the second criteria, the defendant has to be shown to have not had a predisposition to commit that crime without the government’s encouragement.

Fakhoury cautions that the case for any defendant associated with Monsegur would depend on the specific facts of that person’s behavior and communications with Monsegur. But he believes the first element of entrapment may strongly apply in some of the indicted hackers’ cases, while the predisposition case will be more difficult to argue. “I think inducement is pretty clear here,” says Fakhoury. “The government knew what [Monsegur] was doing. Much harder will be proving pre-disposition: that the defendants weren’t already predisposed to engage in that [illegal] behavior.”

Given that members of Anonymous often openly discuss their motivations and gain status in the group by acting on their own initiative, prosecutors may have an easy time showing that any defendants in Monsegur’s circle were already predisposed to hacking. “They’re pretty vocal about their tactics and their policies and what they want to do,” says Fakhoury. “A traditional entrapment case is someone who’s pressured into something. These individuals aren’t usually pressured, and they often make statements like ‘This is why I’m involved in Anonymous and this is what I’m doing.’”

In other areas, particularly domestic terrorism, the FBI has been known to weave complex scenarios around suspects to actively tempt them into committing crimes. In the case of the “Newburgh Five,” a group of New York men charged with plotting to bomb synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military airplanes, the FBI informant in many respects functioned as the primary organizer of the plot, offering to supply the group with its explosives, a BMW, a $250,000 payment. As for the “terrorists” themselves, they were hardly capable of carrying out the attack on their own: None even had a driver’s license.

In another case, two activists at the Republican National Convention were arrested and convicted on terrorism charges for making Molotov cocktails. As laid out in the recent documentary “Better This World,” the pair had been mentored in radical activism for over a year by a well-known activist-turned-FBI-informant who encouraged them to abandon more pacificist measures.

Despite cases like these, none of the 10 terrorism prosecutions involving informants over the last decade has successfully used an entrapment defense. “In short, if a suspicion of entrapment seems a viable starting-point for a defense, forget it,” attorney Karen Greenberg wrote in an editorial in the Guardian. “Find another strategy with which to defend your client.”

In the case of Monsegur, the EFF’s Fakhoury says the case does indeed smell “fishy.” ”Is the government manufacturing crime in order to prevent it?” he asks. “Something about it definitely doesn’t seem right.”

And whether or not an entrapment defense will win out for any of Monsegur’s fellow hackers, Fakhoury expects the issue to appear in their upcoming trials. “I don’t think this will necessarily be that successful a defense,” he says. “But it’s one that should absolutely be raised by any good defense attorney.””

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.