Successful Case Analysis

Sentenced to 6 Months of Home Confinement, Followed by 3 years of Probation

Criminal Charges: Conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, in the Federal District Court, Southern District of New York.

Client: 41 year-old business owner.

Result: The defendant was sentenced to six months of home confinement, followed by three years of probation, despite a Federal Sentencing Guidelines analysis that recommended significant federal prison time.

Facts: On at least two occasions, the defendant sold crack cocaine to a confidential informant, while being observed by FBI agents stationed across the street from his place of business.

The Government’s Initial Position: The evidence against my client was extraordinarily strong, and the Government viewed him with absolutely no sympathy. He owned a large, successful local business and had begun distributing crack with another individual to bring in extra income.

My Office’s Approach: My client was faced with significant Federal prison time, and the forfeiture of his business property. As a consequence, I determined that attempted cooperation with the United States Attorney’s Office was the only appropriate way to proceed in an effort to avoid significant jail time. Unfortunately, my client was not a sophisticated drug dealer and had very little useful information for the Government. After an extensive series of meetings with the Assistant United State Attorneys handling the case, as well as the FBI agents who arrested my client, the decision was made by the Government not to use my client as a cooperating witness. He did not have enough information to be of value to them. My office was left in the difficult position of facing extremely strong evidence, mandating serious federal prison time, and a client with no useful information for the Government.

Result: Despite these significant obstacles, my office was able to obtain for the client a sentence of six months of home confinement, followed by three years of probation, with no federal prison time being imposed. The key to such a result was to initially win over the Assistant United States Attorneys handling the case. My approach was to first humanize my client in the series of face to face meetings with the Government, noted above. These meetings proved to be extremely effective with respect to a key issue, the Government’s willingness to characterize the drugs sold as powder cocaine, and not crack. This significant use of discretion by the Government reduced the Federal Sentencing Guidelines analysis to call for only 12 to 18 months in federal prison. The next, and in my judgment, crucial success, was to convince the Senior Federal District Court Judge that my client’s attempted cooperation had value. My argument was that the client should be given credit for his attempt to cooperate, despite the Government’s unwillingness to use him as a witness.

Final Analysis: This strategy was a success in all respects. At sentencing, the judge adopted my argument as to why my client had earned a sentence of home confinement, followed by probation, through his attempted cooperation with the Government. Equally as important, the judge did not order my client to forfeit his interest in the business property where the sales occurred. In my judgment, this extraordinary result was achieved through careful and sophisticated intervention with both the Government and the District Court. At each important stage of the proceedings, both the United States Attorney’s Office, as well as the District Court Judge, were effectively persuaded to treat the defendant in the most favorable way possible. Ultimately, this was a very gratifying representation and a wonderful result in all respects for my client and his young family.