Federal agents and AUSAs serve subpoenas that demand the production of huge amounts of documents and data. They seek search warrants that authorize the seizure of every electronic device at the location to be searched – computers, servers, external hard drives and cell phones. They seize tens of thousands of emails, texts and other forms of communication from businesses and individuals. This common investigative tactic results in an exponential growth in seized data to be reviewed and turned over in discovery to the defense.

A few years ago, after several high profile cases exposed the Department of Justice’s failures in processing and timely disclosing seized data to the defense, the DOJ told U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country to collect less evidence. In late 2022, a training program was implemented to teach more than 6000 federal prosecutors to be more selective in the evidence sought and seized. This was the so called “smart collection” approach.

This approach was developed because DOJ struggled to fund and find the software and personnel needed to store and analyze the volume of electronic evidence seized. In fiscal year 2023, DOJ requested $27 million for U.S. Attorneys’ offices “e-Litigation modernization”, including 52 new positions and technology upgrades. This was in addition to DOJ’s $1.5 billion e-discovery vendor services contract awarded in 2020 and set to expire in 2027.

Putting aside the government’s issues and budget, seizures of terabytes of data require an enormous expenditure of time and resources for the defense. Effective review of the data requires hosting a search platform that can search millions of pages for key words, names and dates in an expedient fashion. Outside vendor platforms can cost thousands of dollars a month just for the platform. Add to that the time spent by paralegals and associates conducting the actual searches and initial review of the documents, and then the further review by the attorney handling the case. One can quickly see that only well-funded clients, or ones with some type of insurance or corporate backing, can afford zealous representation.

The costs for the review of massive amounts of documents and other data, coupled with potentially much lengthier prison sentences post-trial rather than a negotiated plea, account for the 95-97% rate of pleas in the federal system. Few individuals can afford the costs of a trial – legal and discovery fees, expert witness fees and the so-called “trial penalty” (harsher sentences after a loss at trial).

DOJ must do better at seizing and turning over data that falls within the confines of the items authorized to be seized in the warrant, and limiting the scope of the documents sought in grand jury subpoenas. Courts must enforce discovery obligations on the government and compel the government to produce the discovery in a timely and organized fashion that permits defendants to be properly and zealously represented, including those defendants that cannot afford costly search platforms.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of individuals under complex federal and state investigations with terabytes of discovery. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@stahlegasiorowski.com Ms. Gasiorowski at lkg@stahlegasiorowski.com.

This topic is of particular relevance given the publicity surrounding the indictment, arrest and detention of Sean “P. Diddy” Combs in the Southern District of New York this week. Both at the Magistrate-Judge at the initial hearing, and the District Court Judge hearing the appeal the following day, held that no conditions of release could assure that Mr. Combs would not be a danger to the community, in particular the risk of witness tampering and obstruction in his case.

In the federal system, most people charged with non-violent offenses are released after their first appearance before a Magistrate-Judge on conditions. Those conditions are to reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person or the community. 18 U.S.C. §3142(c). Those conditions of release could be as simple as release on an unsecured appearance bond, meaning no property or money is posted, travel restricted to the continental United States, surrender of passport, surrender of any firearms and reporting to Pretrial Services as required. For certain serious cases, the conditions of release could be very stringent, including home detention with electronic monitoring where the person is only allowed out of the home only for preapproved visits with their attorney or medical appointments, surrender of family members’ passports, the posting of properties with substantial equity, and release to third party custodians who are responsible to report any violations of the conditions of release to the court.

Pretrial Services (PTS) is an arm of the court that interviews the charged individual about their background, prior addresses, any prior criminal record, assets and liabilities, frequency of travel outside the United States and any health or mental health issues. After reviewing the charges and the person’s history, PTS makes a recommendation to the court as to the conditions of release.

In determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of person and the safety of any other person or the community, the Court must consider the factors set forth in § 3142(g), not one of which is dispositive and all of which must be weighed with the underlying principle that only “a limited group of offenders” should be denied bail pending trial. Those factors include:

1. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether it is a crime of violence;
2. The weight of the evidence against the person;
3. The history and characteristics of the person, including the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, drug or alcohol problems, criminal history and any past record of missing court appearances; and the nature and seriousness of the danger posed to any person or the community if the person was released, including intimidation of prospective witnesses or jurors.

If the government moves for pretrial detention, risk of flight must be demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the presence of the defendant at trial. Dangerousness requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the safety of others or the community. Certain violent or drug crimes carry a presumption of detention that must be overcome by the defense to secure the person’s release pending trial. The rules of evidence and admissibility do not apply for these hearings and the government may proceed by way of proffer or witnesses. The defense has the opportunity to present their own witnesses, cross-examine any government witnesses and the defendant has the right to testify.

In the case of Sean Combs, the sex trafficking charge carries a rebuttable presumption of pretrial detention. In anticipation of these charges, his attorneys took several proactive steps to position their client in the best possible way to overcome this presumption. They had Mr. Combs pay off the remaining mortgage on his Miami home so that it could be posted as part of a $50 million bond, put his private jet up for sale so that it couldn’t be used to flee the jurisdiction, surrendered his and his family members’ passports, offered to have his travel restricted to the SDNY, SDFL and DNJ, have family members co-sign his bond, and be under strict conditions of home detention with electronic monitoring. In addition, they argued that Mr. Combs has known about the investigation and likely charges for many months and had cooperated with grand jury subpoenas and remained in the jurisdiction even though he had ample opportunity to flee.

Despite the extraordinary amount of bond and extremely strict set of conditions offered by the defense, two judges rejected those arguments and ordered that Combs be detained pending trial. The defense immediately announced that those decisions would be appealed to the Second Circuit for further review by a three judge panel.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have successfully argued scores of bail and detention hearings, as well as successfully appealing detention orders. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and offer big law skills at boutique firm prices. To contact us call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com or Laura K. Gasiorowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com.

Back in February, the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division Fraud Section released its annual review. Of the Fraud Section’s three litigation divisions, Health Care Fraud, Market Integrity and Major Frauds and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Health Care Fraud is the largest with nearly twice as many trial attorneys and the most active unit.

In addition to the usual statistics about the number of attorneys, defendants charged and number of trials, the report also announced a change in how their trial attorneys are assigned in the field. Previously, trial attorneys were assigned to strike force cities in 24 judicial districts. Under the new deployment, the cities are grouped into regions allowing a broader approach and sharing of resources in wider areas.

The report noted that enforcement actions were prioritized in areas involving pharmaceuticals, telemedicine, laboratory testing and durable medical equipment. There is also an emphasis on vulnerable populations, such as the elderly or addicted patients.

DOF continues to utilize its analytics unit to identify suspicious healthcare billing patterns and geographic hot spots for fraudulent activities. The analytics unit, formed in 2018, provides proactive referrals based on the data analysis.

In State v. O’Donnell, 2023 WL 50005787 (August 7, 2023), the New Jersey Supreme Court made clear that our bribery statute, NJSA 2C:27-2(d), includes bribes to a candidate for public office, as well as an actual office holder. In 2018, O’Donnell was a Bayonne mayoral candidate. A tax attorney who was cooperating with law enforcement brought a bag of cash to O’Donnell’s campaign headquarters with the promise that if O’Donnell was elected mayor, he would make the cooperator the city’s tax counsel. The candidate was indicted under New Jersey’s bribery statute.

The trial court dismissed the bribery charge reasoning that the statute did not apply to a mere candidate for office as he was not yet a “public official.” The Appellate Division reversed, holding that it was irrelevant to the candidate’s culpability whether he was elected to office. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. It held that the bribery statute applies to a candidate for political office even if he is not an incumbent and is not ultimately elected.

In holding that a candidate can be found guilty under New Jersey’s bribery statute, the court relied extensively on the plain language of the statute and prior case law. In particular the Court held that, “It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he has not yet assumed office, or lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.” The Court also cited a prior Appellate Division case, State v. Schenkolewski, which held that neither the bribe giver nor recipient need be a public official, only that he could influence matters in connection with an official duty, whether actually capable or not of doing so.

In contrast, in May of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the reach of a similar statute holding that a private citizen, even one with influence over government decision-making, cannot be convicted for wire fraud based on an intangible right to honest-services for accepting payment to exercise that influence. Percoco v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 1130 (2023). While the decision focused on erroneous jury instructions at trial, Percoco is one in a line of cases narrowing the reach and scope of the federal bribery offenses.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and have represented numerous clients faced with bribery and honest services fraud in state and federal courts. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

Tommy Cetnar:
We’re back to The Tommy Cetnar Show, August 15th. We’ll get into this special date in our last 10 minutes. Robin, we have a great man here. I’m going to have to read it as is. This former Detective Sergeant, who then went and put himself through law school. Mr. Robert Stahl was Assistant US Attorney from ’91 to ’97, handling many, many trials — major fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, 18 month FBI IRS undercover operation tagged Operation Red Daisy, where he prosecuted La Costa Nostra and the Russia mob, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal and state taxes for motor fuels.

More importantly, he received the Department of Justice highest award. This award-winning Lawyer of the Year in 2022 is a friend and a special guest, who knows how to prosecute and also knows how to defend when people are wronged. Bob, how are you my friend? Thank you for joining Robin and I on The Tommy Cetnar Show today.

Robert Stahl:
I’m good, Tommy and Robin. Good to be with you.

Robin DiLauri:
Hi, Bob. Thank you so much. I have to tell my husband that he could just say the word, the mob, instead of La Costa Nostra.

Tommy Cetnar:
Well, I wanted to be Italian like you for a minute.

Robin DiLauri:
He didn’t even say it right.

Robert Stahl:
Exactly. He sounded very official though, Robin.

Robin DiLauri:
That’s true. Well, you’re a highly esteemed attorney, and so absolutely … you deserved that intro. So thank you for being on this show. Thank you so much.

Tommy Cetnar:
Hey, Bob, you have worn several hats. And I’ll ask you to put your defense hat on right now, because that’s more or less … it is what you’re practicing. This fourth indictment of the former President of the United States, let’s stipulate that most the Trump supporters think it’s dead wrong and all this. But this last one, does it make anybody a little more nervous in his camp when you see 16, 18 other people indicted?

And as we both know, it’s the squeeze time. Are they going to try to flip people? Is this a legitimate charge, when you see racketeering and conspiring charges like this, or is this just a pile on? And are we to believe the county leaked it out before they even told Trump that he was getting indicted, his lawyers? What say you, from a defense attorney here?

Robert Stahl:
Well, I think, Tommy, that the word from the Trump camp behind the scenes is this is the one that they’ve been concerned the most with. And why is that? One, like you just said, there’s 18 other defendants. And you and I both know that the more people that are indicted, the more people feel pressure to try to cooperate. And that is always a defense attorney’s concern, is that co-conspirators plead guilty. Say, “I was part of this conspiracy, and so were these other people.”

And so when you have a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization Act charge, which faces up to 20 years in prison, that brings together … why did they use RICO? Because that permits charging multiple people who commit separate crimes while working towards a common goal. And here they charge that all these acts were part of an ongoing criminal enterprise to overturn the 2020 election results. So I think that that has some weight to it because the state charges more seem to fit, as opposed to some of the federal charges that some people think are being stretched to fit the alleged facts.

Tommy Cetnar:
Now, does he get a whole new legal team for this indictment? How is this being broken up over all these indictments? Certain lawyers take number one, number two, number three, and now the fourth?

Robert Stahl:
It seems that way. I mean, former President Trump has a number of attorneys working for him. My colleague and friend John Lauro from Florida and New York is representing him in the latest federal indictment. And so it would be difficult for the same set of attorneys to handle all these cases, although you would think that there would be an overarching leadership team of attorneys to help defend, because the charges are similar in some of the jurisdictions.

So the DC recent federal case with the special counsel, although Jack Smith kept it lean and just charged former President Trump, many of these overt acts … and there’s 161 of them listed in the Georgia indictment will relate to the conduct that the federal government charges as well.

Tommy Cetnar:
And without bouncing around on you, special counsel was just … the AG issued the Delaware prosecutor all the power now, basically to explore Biden. Are they really … is the Department of Justice supposed to take somebody that close? Or should it be somebody independent, from the outside, if they’re really going to be seriously looking into Hunter Biden?

Robert Stahl:
Well, that’s a good question. This was … the US attorney from Delaware was a Trump appointee, and held over for this. And so it depends how you want to look at it. So the Department of Justice looks at it that he knows the case. If we appoint a new special counsel, that person has to get up to speed, and that’s going to be an even larger delay. And so this is a way of fast tracking it.

And friends on the other side look at it as that’s not appropriate, that it should be somebody independent, because this is the same person that authorized the two misdemeanor charges that were going to be pled to. So it depends how you look at it. And each side sees it differently.

Tommy Cetnar:
You’re very generous to us with your time today. And I know when you’re prepping for trial or getting ready with your clients, there’s no time for anybody to really breathe, because you want to give the best effort you can. You want to represent the right way. And if you were on the other side and you’re prosecuting, like we talked about, the cases that you’ve tried before, you don’t even go home half of the time. You’re with your colleagues and you’re getting ready for trial. How is President Trump going to run for office throughout all this?

Robert Stahl:
Well, that’s the big question, right? I mean, as you said, when myself and my other attorneys are getting ready for trial, we stay in hotels, we devote seven days a week to preparing and trying a case. And we rely on our clients to be with us and help prepare. And now facing four indictments, even if they get pushed out, as most of his attorneys are trying to do, it’s still going to be practically impossible not to divert someone’s attention. When clients are under these types of pressures, that becomes first and foremost in your mind. You have to worry about yourself and your family.

Former President Trump seems to do a good job of separating them and continuing moving forward, but the time constraints are huge. And as other of his attorneys have said, “These investigations have been going on for years, and now we want to fast track the trials.” So never does the defense get the same amount of time the government does in investigating cases. But certainly, the judges have to be concerned that there’s ineffective assistance of counsel and violating someone’s Sixth Amendment rights and other rights by rushing something to trial that’s gone on for years, and has dozens and dozens of potential witnesses and hundreds of thousands of documents. So counsel has to have time to prepare.

Tommy Cetnar:
So he could actually become the 47th President of the United States, and he would still be going on trial after he’s in the Oval Office?

Robert Stahl:
That’s possible. And I think that the trials would have to be delayed while he’s in office. So maybe looking at something five years from now.

Tommy Cetnar:
And Robin asked the question, could he pardon himself prior to going to trial?

Robert Stahl:
Well, that’s a question that’s up for debate. But in the state cases, no. So that’s the other reason that the Georgia case has greater jeopardy for the former president, is he can’t pardon himself or anyone for state charges. And even the governor, under Georgia law, has no pardon power. So even if a Republican governor wanted to pardon him, he or she would have no ability. So that’s one of these things.

And this case, Georgia, unlike federal courts, allows TVs most times in court. So that this may be publicized from the first appearance next week, through the whole trial. And that might be something that creates greater jeopardy for the trial, being publicized and being broadcast live.

Tommy Cetnar:
We got about a minute and a half to go. I got one last question for you. It was reported today that the judge in the New York case has made contributions to the Bidens. Does he have to recuse himself? He’s refusing to do it. Should he recuse himself as a result of that? Or she?

Robert Stahl:
Well, does the judge have to? No, because judges are still individuals and can make contributions. And the argument would be on the other side, as well, judges that make donations to the Republican Party, should they be foreclosed from hearing cases with Republican politicians. So I think that … and always, disqualifying a judge is a very uphill battle. So I don’t think it carries much weight in the judicial forum. And I don’t think you’ll have an appellate court overturn the judge’s decision.

So it’s always tough. And obviously when you do that, in normal cases, defense attorneys have to worry about, now what does the judge think about the defense? This is a unique set of circumstances.

Tommy Cetnar:
Well, it’s historic and it’s –

Robert Stahl:
As far as someone now publicly challenging the judges.

Tommy Cetnar:
Yeah. It’s historic, what’s going on here. It’s kind of frustrating. But I guess as we have learned, you’re innocent until proven guilty, but they’re really coming after him. Bob, thank you for coming on. It means a lot to us and our listeners. I mean, your expertise is one that we value in a tremendous way. And I know your schedule, so I really, really appreciate the time today, and hope you’ll keep in touch with us throughout the four indictments that are before us. And we’ll see what happens in 2024.

Robert Stahl:
Well, I look forward to talking with you both, and your audience, again. These are complicated matters and it’s hard to just get them down in a short period of time. So let’s see how everything plays out.

Tommy Cetnar:
Thanks, pal. I appreciate your coming on.

Robin DiLauri:
Thank you so much.

Tommy Cetnar:
Bob Stahl, everybody. One of the best in the business. One of the best in the business. Thanks, Bob.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world use facial recognition technology and other AI in investigations to track targets’ movements and as evidence in prosecutions. While books and movies often portray this technology as highly advanced and foolproof, reality can be quite different. Recent cases have demonstrated that facial recognition technology is far from foolproof and may lead to even more misidentifications when identifying people of color.

Companies such as Clearview AI have contracts with law enforcement agencies across the United States. Clearview scrapes billions of photos from social media for its database. Photos from LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and the public web are uploaded to its database. For an annual fee, law enforcement has access to a face-based search engine. Obviously, a number of factors affect the reliability of the search results. The quality and resolution of the surveillance photo used for the search, the ethnicity of the subject, and the number and age of the comparison photos can all affect the results.

The most troubling, however, is that it appears that in a number of cases law enforcement failed to use other investigative means before seeking arrest warrants for the individuals “identified” by facial recognition software. As Clearview’s CEO made clear to the New York Times recently, when its technology comes up with an “initial result” that should be the starting point in law enforcement’s investigation, not the conclusion. In other words, facial recognition technology should only be used as one investigative tool that may provide a lead in an investigation that must then be coupled with other basic investigative steps.

A recent example of this is the case of Randal Quran Reid who was driving near Atlanta when he was stopped and arrested for alleged thefts in Louisiana. The police in Baton Rouge and Jefferson Parish had apparently used facial recognition from store videos purporting to show Mr. Reid stealing valuable items. Warrants for his arrest were issued and Mr. Reid was held for days pending extradition for crimes he did not commit. The NYT reports that it seems likely that local police simply used the faulty facial recognition identification to obtain the arrest warrants. It is difficult to know for sure because many law enforcement agencies do not reveal that such technology was used, or that it was the sole or primary basis for the warrant.

What should officials in Louisiana have done before issuing an arrest warrant based on facial recognition? First, actually compare the photos to Mr. Reid. According to the article, Mr. Reid is smaller, lighter and less muscular that the actual thief. Next, investigate to see if Mr. Reid was actually in Louisiana around the time of the thefts. How does one determine that? Examine credit card receipts for gas purchases or any other items in the state, travel records and EZ-Pass records, social media, license plate readers and the like. Conversely, look to see if there is evidence that Mr. Reid was in his home state during the thefts. In fact, had law enforcement checked, they would have discovered that Mr. Reid had never been to Louisiana.

Artificial intelligence is advancing at breakneck speed and law enforcement is eager to use all forms of technology to assist in their investigations. The key, however, is AI should only be used to “assist” not conclude. Traditional investigative techniques must be employed to corroborate and verify the alleged results of such database searches, lest more innocent people sit in jail hoping that their attorneys can free them.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and challenge the use of such AI based searches in pretrial hearings and trial. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision that dramatically altered a citizen’s ability to carry a firearm outside one’s home. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, was a challenge to New York State’s Law requiring justifiable need and good cause for an individual to secure a permit for concealed carry of a firearm. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment afforded individuals the right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense and that the necessity of justifiable need would be an infringement on that right.

The Bruen decision has led to a dramatic change in New Jersey law. Prior to Bruen, New Jersey, like New York, issued only a handful of such permits as N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 required every applicant to “demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” That need was strictly interpreted.

Thus, on June 24, 2022, Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin issued Law Enforcement Directive No. 2022-07 urging all police departments to process concealed carry permits by continuing to implement statutory prohibitions, background checks and firearms familiarity as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(1) – (11) and N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(b). With the change in law, Governor Murphy predicted that 200,000 applications for concealed carry permits would likely be filed. The system, however, was designed to handle a very small number of applications. For instance in 2014, in a state with a population almost 9 million residents, only 496 concealed carry permits were issued.

New applications have already overloaded the application process, police departments and the Courts. Several counties are requiring hearings before the Presiding Criminal Division Judge to determine the eligibility, restrictions, and approval of concealed carry permits. These courts, already severely backlogged with criminal cases that were on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic, are now deluged with carry permit applications. While it remains to be seen how the Courts will adjust to the volume of applicants, as well as, what new or additional restrictions may be introduced by law makers, one thing is certain, applicants will endure a long and arduous process. These delays will be met with pressure from applicants citing N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, which states: “If the application is not approved by the chief police officer or the superintendent within 60 days of filing, it shall be deemed to have been approved, unless the applicant agrees to an extension of time in writing”.

In the wake of Bruen, Governor Murphy also implemented new training and safety requirements for those applying for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FID). An FID is required for any New Jersey Resident to purchase a firearm. On July 5, 2022, Governor Murphy signed into law new revisions to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 to take effect immediately. Revisions included “In order to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun or firearms purchaser identification card, the applicant shall demonstrate that, within four years prior to the date of the application, the applicant satisfactorily completed a course of instruction approved by the superintendent in the lawful and safe handling and storage of firearms. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate completion of a course of instruction only once prior to obtaining either a firearms purchaser identification card or the applicant’s first permit to purchase a handgun.” In addition, a NJ FID Card must now display a color photograph and thumb print of the card holder and the card holder must now renew their FID Card every ten (10) years. NJ FID Cards previously had no expiration date.

The immediate implementation of these revisions caused further confusion and delays. A number of municipalities stopped processing applications, uncertain which training course(s) would be approved by the State Police Superintendent. Another issue involves the cards themselves. FID Cards now must bear both the photograph and thumbprint of the card holder. The current system, however, was designed to distribute approved FID cards in a digital format. Towns are now concerned whether new equipment to print the FID cards with photographs and thumb prints must be purchased. Indecision regarding the new statutory amendments reached its peak when the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office issued a directive to all municipal police departments in the county to stop processing and issuing FID cards until clarification on fulfillment of new protocols was established by both the Superintendent and Governor.

In a speech to members of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the Governor announced that the Superintendent had approved a new online course to satisfy the training requirement of the new law. This instructional safety course, provided free of charge to first time applicants, was implemented on Monday, September 16, on the New Jersey Firearms Application & Registration portal found on the NJSP’s website. The Governor also confirmed that all County Prosecutors were to process first-time purchaser applications without the requirement of the new amendments.

Undoubtedly, New Jersey has one of the nations’ strictest set of gun laws. Experienced and skillful legal advice can greatly assist applicants navigating the ever-changing landscape of firearm ownership in New Jersey.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented numerous clients facing a variety of issues involving firearms and firearm ownership at both the state and federal level. We actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights. To Contact Mr. Stahl, call (908) 301-9001 for the NJ office and (212) 755-3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at RStahl@StahlEsq.com

A recent high profile case highlights the federal government’s ability to seize a convicted defendant’s accounts to satisfy an Order of Restitution after a conviction at trial or a guilty plea. The Second Circuit recently held that the retirement funds of Evan Greebel, the former convicted attorney and Martin Shkreli’s codefendant, could be seized in partial satisfaction of the restitution amount owed. Greebel was convicted in a separate 2017 trial for assisting his client Shkreli’s fraudulent taking of funds from Retrophin to pay Shkreli’s hedge fund debts, and for manipulating the stock price of Shkreli’s drug company. After conviction, Greebel was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay $10.4 million in restitution.

In its opinion, the Second Circuit upheld the trial court’s decision that Greebel’s 401(k) accounts at his former law firm were subject to garnishment in an effort to collect the restitution amount. The Second Circuit held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) gives the government full access to retirement funds, and that ERISA’s prohibition on disbursing retirement funds to third parties is trumped by the MVRA.

It is well-established that under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(A), the Government may enforce a restitution order in the manner provided by subchapter B of Chapter 229, or 18 U.S.C. § 3613. An order of restitution may be executed in accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil judgment under federal law or state law or by all other available and reasonable means. 18 U.S.C. § 3613 (a) and (f).

The MVRA broadly permits the United States to enforce a restitution order “against all property or rights to property of the person fined.” Pursuant to §3613(c), once restitution is ordered, all the defendant’s property becomes subject to a lien in favor of the United States, and for purposes of debt collection, such lien is treated like a tax lien. §3613(c). Thus, any property the IRS can reach to satisfy a tax lien, a sentencing court can also reach in a restitution order – bank accounts, retirement funds, stock accounts and even Social Security benefits. Additionally, while periodic payments (usually monthly payments through the Probation Department) in satisfaction of a restitution order are limited to 25% of the defendant’s disposable income, one time lump sums payments, such as the garnishment of a retirement or bank account, are not limited.

The only issue left unanswered by the Second Circuit in Greebel was whether the government could seize all the funds, or whether it had to leave the defendant sufficient funds to pay the 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal of retirement funds. In many instances, the amount left to a defendant to pay tax penalties and taxes on garnishment of retirement accounts can be negotiated with the government.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented scores of clients facing restitution and forfeiture orders and garnishments. We actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS, OIG) issued a special fraud alert advising healthcare providers to exercise caution when contracting with telemedicine companies. Such alerts are significant as they put providers on notice that OIG intends to investigate and prosecute potential fraud regarding telemedicine/. Such notices provide the opportunity for healthcare providers to review their practices and compliance, as well as list examples of suspect practices in the industry.

Historically, federal regulations limited the use and scope of telemedicine. It became widely available, however, during the COVID crisis that necessitated the loosening of government regulations. While a relaxation of regulations and restrictions offered patients greater access to physicians, it also opened the door to fraudulent conduct. In previous articles, we explored schemes involving compound medicines, genetic cancer screening (CGx and PGx tests) and durable medical equipment (DME) such as orthotic braces.

This latest fraud alert confirms that OIG is still aggressively targeting DME companies, laboratories and pharmacies using telehealth services. The OIG alert offers a non-comprehensive list of factors that they examine in potential fraud cases, including:

1. Patients that are referred to a practitioner through a telemedicine company, telemarketing, recruiter, call center, health fair or internet;
2. Practitioner has only limited access or contact with the alleged patient to meaningfully access the medical necessity of the services solicited;
3. Telemedicine company compensates the practitioner based on the volume of prescriptions and services;
4. Telemedicine company only provides services to federal health care program beneficiaries, and does not accept private insurance;
5. Telemedicine company only provides a single class of products such as braces, genetic testing, compound medicines – pain, scar and vitamin creams – thus limiting a practitioner’s treatment options; and
6. Telemedicine company does not expect its physicians to follow up with the patients regarding their prescriptions or services.

This alert expressly notes that proactive marketing that advertises free or low cost items or services covered by federal healthcare programs and exclusively marketed to such beneficiaries is “suspect”. Additionally, any program that limits a practitioner from contacting a patient to follow up or offer other medical services is suspect.

While HHS, OIG alerts provide valuable guidance for practitioners and other healthcare professionals, they also provide federal prosecutors the opportunity to argue that a provider’s good faith defense is limited after such an alert has been issued, i.e. that providers are on notice that such practices as suspect.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented dozens of physicians, marketers, telehealth companies and pharmacists in federal healthcare fraud investigations. We proactively and aggressively protect our clients’ rights. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

Cybercrimes – hacking, phishing, ransomware and the like – are well-known to every user of the internet. We are bombarded weekly with emails and texts claiming that we need to update our passwords, personal profile, and the like. Now comes the rise of what has been called “romance scams”. The typical scheme starts with a fake dating profile on an online dating site. Fake name, picture, background, likes and what the alleged person is looking for in a mate is established. Once selected, the fraudster starts a series of on-line communications that lure the unsuspecting victim in with attention, romance and affection. The fraudster then sets out a story about why s/he needs money – lost their passport and credit cards while on a trip; a co-worker was injured and it was the fault of the scammer; needs money for a sick relative – always with the promise to return the money.

In 2021, it was reported that victims were scammed out of at least $547 million, an 80% increase over 2020. This figure is likely conservative since many victims of romance scams are too embarrassed to report them or the amounts are too small for law enforcement to actively investigate. Not unexpectedly, recently divorced and windowed women are frequent targets of romance scams.

Federal law enforcement has discovered that many of these types of scams are run out of Nigeria by organized groups, a well-known hotbed for cyber fraud and money laundering schemes. Many others, however, are simply con artists here in the United States looking for easy marks by preying on someone’s kindness, loneliness and vulnerabilities.

While older woman are common targets, the government reported that people between the ages of 18-29 are increasingly targets resulting in a tenfold increase from 2017 to 2021. Netflix documented one such scam in its documentary “The Tinder Swindler”. The film recounted the exploits of Shimon Hayut who held himself out as the son of a famous Russian-Israeli diamond scion. He lavished his victims with first class travel, jewelry and clothing using the proceeds from prior victims. His promotion of his lavish lifestyle on social media – private jets, yachts, expensive watches and clothes – was one way he recruited his victims. Once he lured a woman in, he then fabricated tales of being in danger and needing money for his safety.

These types of schemes are particularly heinous. They not only deprive the victims of often limited resources, they prey on their vulnerabilities, often leaving the victims psychologically scarred and feeling deeply violated. Victims are often too embarrassed to tell family, friend or law enforcement. Some are even left believing that the person who romanced them was genuine and something bad must have happened to him after they lose contact.

Recently, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, FBI and other federal agencies have been aggressively investigating and prosecuting these hideous schemes as often there are multiple victims totaling substantial losses.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

The Department of Justice just announced charges against 21 individuals in a nationwide crackdown of COVID-19 related prosecutions that resulted in $150 million worth of fraud. The schemes were varied and involved medical doctors, medical labs, marketers and others in the healthcare field.

For instance, two owners of a lab in California allegedly billed more than $125 million in fraudulent claims. In Maryland and New York drive through test site operators are accused of using confidential patient information to bill for lengthy office visits that never occurred. In New Jersey, five individuals were accused of paying or receiving kickbacks for referring COVID tests to a particular lab. Even though the tests were medically necessary, and the lab only billed the allowable rate to the government program, the lab was accused of violating the anti-kickback statute that prohibits paying individuals or companies to refer tests.

The Maryland case charged a physician with submitting false claims to Medicare and private insurers. The defendant owned drive through COVID testing sites. Employees gathered patient information at the sites and later submitted false claims for complex in office visits for other healthcare procedures that never occurred.

In Florida, a registered nurse was charged with signing huge numbers of medically unnecessary doctor’s orders in exchange for sham telemedicine consulting fees. Another case in Florida charged individuals with fraudulent Medicare billing for medical equipment that was obtained by paying kickbacks to marketing companies that solicited patients for equipment they didn’t need.

In other schemes, defendants in California were charged with allegedly counterfeiting vaccine cards. Another case involved a hospital pharmacy director who obtained authentic Moderna dose lot numbers and used them to falsify vaccine ecards.

In New Jersey, one of the District’s first healthcare fraud trials just resulted in a guilty verdict against a medical sales representative of a diagnostic lab who paid kickbacks to a physician for referring tests to the lab. In an effort to disguise the kickbacks, the marketer placed the physician’s medical assistant on the lab’s payroll. In a related scheme, the marketer was paid for promoting medically unnecessary compound medicines that certain insurance plans covered. The defendant and others paid kickbacks to doctors to prescribe the unnecessary compounds without even examining the patients.

Other cases have charged individuals with fraudulently obtaining relief funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. A 2020 bill that provided billion in emergency financial assistance.

These and scores of other cases highlight federal authorities continuing investigations and DOJ’s aggressive prosecution of a variety of healthcare fraud schemes. These schemes involve medically unnecessary compound medicines, genetic cancer tests, kickbacks on prescriptions for DME – durable medical equipment – such as braces, as well as COVID-19 tests.

Federal healthcare laws and regulations are complex. There are countless ways for doctors, pharmacists, lab owners and marketers to violate these laws. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience representing individuals and corporations accused of healthcare fraud. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

It’s 6 a.m. or 8 p.m., your doorbell rings and two people are standing outside holding up their badges and credentials. They say they are Special Agents with the FBI or IRS and would like to talk with you for just a few minutes about something important. They ask if they could come in to speak with you privately. Caught off-guard, and not wanting them to think that you have anything to hide, you invite them in (and, of course, you don’t want your neighbors to see them talking to you on your front steps). The agents are “friendly” and just have a few questions to get your input, your side of things, or to serve you with a grand jury subpoena. You decide to talk to them, only for a few minutes, in the comfort of your own home or office. At the end, they thank you for your time and hand you either a grand jury subpoena or a “target letter.”

After they leave, you start to wonder – what did I say? How much did I tell them? Am I in trouble, did I implicate myself or others? You start to look for an attorney. You can’t ask your family or friends who they hired last time the FBI or IRS visited them because you don’t know anyone who ever faced such a situation. So, you scour the internet to find an experienced criminal defense attorney, one with a lot of federal experience because it’s a federal investigation.

The next day you’re in the attorney’s office. After talking to the attorney you realize that what you thought was an innocuous 15 -30 minute chat with the FBI was actually an hour and a half where you told them some things, but not others. You discover that it is a federal crime to lie to the agents. You learn that it doesn’t matter that they didn’t read you your rights, like in the movies, because you weren’t “in custody.” When you tell the lawyer that you only spoke to them because you didn’t want the agents to think you were involved or guilty, the lawyer tells you that the agents already think that you’re involved, that’s why they were at your house to interview you in the first place. You then learn that there were two agents so that the interview was witnessed by two of them for credibility later on if you dispute what you said. You learn that a “target letter” is issued by an Assistant U.S. Attorney because she believes that you are involved in criminal activity and wants you to come in with your attorney to negotiate a plea of guilty. You realize that it was a mistake to say anything to the agents without first talking with an experienced white-collar criminal defense attorney.

So, what should you do in such a situation? The safest course would be to politely tell the agents that while you would like to talk with them, you need to contact your attorney and that he will get back to them. Ask them for their business cards so that you can give the information to your attorney. If they don’t have cards, write down their names, agency and contact information. Do not under any circumstances talk with them about the subject matter of their investigation. After they leave, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to discuss your rights, potential exposure and your options.

If you did talk with the agents, experienced criminal defense counsel can help you get through the situation and protect your rights going forward. The task will be to mitigate any statements made and develop an overall strategy to succeed.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of individuals under federal and state investigations. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

In addition to the 93 U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country that investigate and prosecute health care fraud, the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division based in Washington D.C. has approximately 76 federal prosecutors devoted to such prosecutions. This DOJ Unit targets complex health care fraud involving illegal prescription, distribution and diversion of opioids; telemedicine fraud; and fraud related to COVID, including counterfeit vaccine cards.

The just released year-end report for 2021 reveals the total cases prosecuted and significant cases of note. The unit charged 202 individuals involved in $1.75 billion in alleged losses, with a significant number of guilty pleas, as well as convictions at trial.

Just in September 2021 alone, DOJ announced charges against 138 defendants, including 42 medical professionals, in connection with a national health care fraud enforcement action.

The Unit is assisted by a data analytics team that identifies suspicious health care billing patterns and likely geographic hotspots for fraud and illegal opioid distribution. In 2021, this data analytics team made 385 proactive investigative referrals to various federal law enforcement agencies.

In addition to the illegal prescription and distribution of opioids, the Unit has aggressively targeted laboratories, telemedicine doctors and nurse practitioners, marketers and pharmacies engaging in illegal kickback schemes. These schemes are designed to induce medical professionals to order medically unnecessary compound medicines, such as pain creams, scar creams, vitamins and migraine medication; or orders for unnecessary laboratory tests for genetic cancer screenings. The payments include money based on a per prescription basis, whether in the form of direct payments, payments to the physician’s spouse, or disguised as lease payments or alleged ownership interest payments for a physician-owned lab.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively defend clients being investigated and prosecuted for health care fraud. Over the past five years we have defended numerous physicians, pharmacists, marketers and lab owners accused of health care fraud. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

When someone pleads guilty or is convicted of a federal or state crime, there are serious collateral consequences, in addition to potential jail time, forfeiture, restitution and other fines and penalties. The term ‘‘collateral consequence’’ means a collateral sanction or a disqualification, a penalty, disability, or disadvantage that is imposed by law as a result of an individual’s conviction for a felony, misdemeanor, or other offense, but not as part of the judgment of the court. Collateral consequences are legal and regulatory restrictions that limit or prohibit people convicted of crimes from:

• Accessing employment
• Business and occupational licensing
• Housing
• Voting
• Possession of firearms and hunting licenses
• Education
• Military service

A federal conviction results in the loss of the right to:

• Vote,
• Possess firearms,
• Sit on a jury
• and may result in travel bans from many countries.

Depending on the type of crime, the person’s professional license may be suspended, or the person may be banned or debarred from certain federal programs for a period of years.

There are more than 45,000 state and local laws and regulations that have profound ramifications for those with criminal records. Roughly 600,000 people leave prisons every year hoping that their punishment has ended, only to encounter a combination of laws, rules, and biases forming barriers that block them from jobs, housing, and fundamental participation in our political, economic, and cultural life. These collateral consequences illustrate the excessively retributive nature of our criminal justice system.

Currently, 30 states disenfranchise at least some people based on past conviction. Some collateral consequences serve a legitimate public safety or regulatory function, such as keeping firearms out of the hands of people convicted of violent offenses, prohibiting people convicted of assault or physical abuse from working with children or the elderly, or barring people convicted of fraud from positions of public trust. Others are directly related to a particular crime, such as registration requirements for sex offenders or driver’s license restrictions for people convicted of serious traffic offenses. But some collateral consequences apply without regard to the relationship between the crime and opportunity being restricted, such as the revocation of a business license after conviction of any felony.

These consequences create social and economic barriers for individuals reentering society by denying or restricting benefits otherwise available to all Americans. Collateral consequences can also adversely affect adoptions, housing, welfare, immigration, employment, professional licensure, property rights, mobility, and other opportunities. The effects of such restrictions often increase recidivism and undermines meaningful reentry.

Despite these sweeping adverse consequences, defendants are generally not entitled, as a matter of due process, to be warned of these consequences, either before accepting a plea or upon conviction. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has required consideration of certain immigration effects of a criminal conviction, the Court left open what other disenfranchisements might rise to the level requiring constitutional protection.

The attorneys at Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense advise all of our clients of the potential collateral consequences of their plea or conviction. We routinely represent licensed professionals that may face parallel administrative actions or hearings seeking to suspend their license based upon the criminal investigation or charges

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience in serious federal and state criminal cases. The founder of the firm, Robert Stahl, is a Certified Criminal Trial Attorney by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who tried some of the largest fraud and tax cases in the District of New Jersey. He has been aggressively defending serious cases in federal and state courts for more than 25 years.

President Biden just signed an Executive Order to phase out the federal government’s use of private prisons. For-profit, private prison systems have been found to provide less humane and less safe environments overall, in an effort to increase profits. While signing the Order, the President stated that “[t]his is the first step to stop corporations from profiting off incarceration, that is less humane and less safe, as studies show . . . [a]nd this is just the beginning of my administration’s plan to address systematic problems in our criminal justice system.”

Beginning in the late 1990s, private prison companies were established to deal with overcrowding. Rather than build new prisons run by the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the government contracted with private companies to both build and operate prisons in certain areas of the country. Numerous individuals sentenced to federal prison have been housed in these locations, including all non-U.S. citizens, who are placed in private prisons to complete their sentences prior to being removed from the country. Unfortunately, the Order just signed by the President does not phase out the use of private prisons to house the sizeable number of incarcerated, non-citizens.

The reasoning behind the Order focuses on racial equality and the level of care in such institutions. To clarify, the Order does not immediately shut down private prisons. Rather, it directs the Department of Justice not to renew their contracts with privately operated criminal detention facilities. The Order noted that there is “broad consensus” that the U.S. system of mass incarceration comes with major costs and hardships without increasing overall safety. Profit-based incentives to incarcerate individuals in facilities that offer sub-standard safety measures, medical programs, and treatment programs should not be tolerated going forward. In an August 2016 report, the DOJ, Office of Inspector General found that “contract prisons incurred more safety and security incidents per capita than comparable BOP institutions.”

New prison and jail population data recently released by the DOJ shows the United States still incarcerates its citizens at a rate 5 to 10 times higher than other industrialized countries. Data also shows the vast racial disparity in number of minorities incarcerated and the average sentence length. The U.S. leads the world in incarceration. While the United States consists of only 5 percent of the world’s total population, it has nearly 25 percent of the world’s prison population – about 2.2 million people.

Operators of private prisons argue that President Biden’s Order was political grandstanding as the BOP had previously announced steps not to renew expiring contracts due to the declining federal prison population. However, this Order explicitly countermanded a Trump-era policy that continued the use of these private prisons without regard for overall prison populations. Thus, there is a clear sign that the new administration is taking criminal justice and prison reform seriously. This is one step in, what will hopefully be, a series of measures designed to reduce the length of sentences, offer alternative non-incarceration programs, and increase the safety and program offerings to those sentenced to prison.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all of your criminal legal needs during this time. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

Many federal, state, and municipal courts have limited the number and types of cases they will be handling in the near term. Some have adjourned jury trials for several weeks and in some cases even months to see what happens after a period of isolation. Courts have summarily waived Speedy Trial Act rights and ordered continuances for a period of time. State courts in particular are promoting the use of video and teleconferencing in lieu of appearing in court. Municipal courts have adjourned court appearances for motor vehicle summonses and code violations. Detention has been waived in certain cases depending on the type of crime, the age of the offender, and other relevant factors.

This is due to fears of spreading the virus to the jail population – causing a sudden boom in cases – and the risk that the greater the jail population, the greater the risk to inmates and staff.

Federal and state criminal investigations and arrests, however, are continuing. While some investigations may lie dormant for a period of time, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country continue to investigate and prosecute cases, especially those with statute of limitations deadlines looming. State investigations and prosecutions continue as well.

Our attorneys and staff are actively and aggressively defending our existing clients’ cases. We are also available to meet with new clients. Being mindful of the importance of self-distancing, we at times work remotely but are available to meet new clients either in person or through video conferencing, and have the capability to offer initial consultations by phone. Challenging times demand innovation and accommodation to our clients’ needs. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all of your criminal legal needs during this time.

Recent statistics show that about 96% of the criminal cases in federal court are resolved through guilty pleas. The number of cases going to trial has dramatically decreased in the past ten years. Thus, today’s criminal defense attorneys must be adept at negotiating the best possible resolution for their clients that choose to plead guilty.

Plea bargains in the federal system, however, differ significantly from plea bargains in many states. For example, in New Jersey a state plea between the county Prosecutor’s Office and the defendant most often is to an agreed upon sentence. If at sentencing the judge disagrees with the agreed upon sentence, the defendant has the option of accepting the sentence handed down by the judge or withdrawing their plea and opting for trial. Nothing the defendant says during their plea hearing can be used against them at trial. It is a rare occurrence, however, for a state court judge to disagree with the negotiated disposition and sentence.

In the federal system, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the defense agree to the specific statute(s) or counts of the Indictment or Information the client will plead to, and often to the specific U.S. Sentencing Guidelines sections and levels that are applicable to the case. This results in an advisory Guidelines range that the parties believe are applicable to the plea. This agreement, however, is only binding on the parties to it – the government and the defense. The Court and U.S. Probation make an independent assessment and determine separately whether the plea agreement calculations are correct. If the court determines that the sentencing range is greater than agreed to, the defendant cannot withdraw their plea and opt for trial. The defendant’s only recourse is to appeal the sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

In addition, each federal district has slightly different rules or accepted practices in negotiating pleas. For example, in the District of New Jersey, when the parties agree to the Guidelines’ levels based upon amount of loss, the amount of drugs, the defendant’s role in the offense, and any other enhancements, the defense is not allowed to affirmatively argue for a variance or departure from the advisory Guidelines range agreed to unless the right is specifically listed in the agreement. In many other districts, no such restriction is placed on the defense, allowing them to argue for a below Guidelines sentence based upon a departure, variance, or the traditional sentencing factors expressed in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) – the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, and to provide specific and general deterrence. Thus, it is critical for defense counsel to be intimately familiar with each districts’ policies for plea agreements and sentencing.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend organizations and individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. Founder Robert G. Stahl is recognized as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the NY/NJ area for his skills, knowledge and success.

Our offices are located in Mountainside, New Jersey and Manhattan. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908.301.9001 for our NJ office and 212.755.3300 for our NYC office, or email us at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com. Or Contact us online.

After more than two years of careful research and deliberation, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) released The Trial Penalty: The Sixth Amendment Right to Trial on the Verge of Extinction and How to Save It. The “trial penalty” refers to the substantial difference between the sentence offered prior to trial versus the sentence a defendant receives after a conviction at trial. This penalty is now so severe and pervasive that it has virtually eliminated the constitutional right to a trial. The report notes that to avoid the trial penalty, defendants must surrender fundamental rights which are essential to a fair justice system. The release of this report has garnered support from leading criminal justice reform entities, all of which agree that the incursion on the right to a trial poses a clear threat to justice.

The data revealed that after a 50-year decline, fewer than 3% of federal criminal cases result in a trial. That means that more than 97% of federal criminal cases were resolved by guilty pleas. In a constitutional system predicated upon the Sixth Amendment right to a trial, the fact of imbalance and injustice in the system seems self-evident.

The report identifies and exposes the underlying causes of the decline of the federal criminal trial and puts forth meaningful, achievable principles and recommendations to address this crisis. Mandatory minimum sentencing provisions have played an important role in reducing the trial rate from more than 20% thirty years ago to 3% today. Instead of using these mandatory sentencing laws for their intended purpose — to impose harsher punishments on a select group of the most culpable defendants — the Department of Justice got in the habit long ago of using them broadly to strong-arm guilty pleas, and to punish those who exercised their right to trial. The Sentencing Guidelines also contribute to this lopsided result, providing excessively harsh sentencing ranges that frame plea discussions when mandatory sentences do not. Finally, the report found that federal judges are complicit as well. In too many cases, excessive trial penalties are the result of judges having internalized a cultural norm that when defendants “roll the dice” by “demanding” a trial, they either win big or lose big. The same judges who will go along with a plea bargain that undercuts a severe Guidelines range are too reticent to stray from the sentencing range after trial.

The report concludes that these excessive trial penalties, undermine the integrity of our criminal justice system. Forcing the government to its proof in a trial is a constitutional right guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. The “innocence problem”, is the fact that prosecutors have become so empowered to enlarge the delta between the sentencing outcome if the defendant pleads guilty versus the outcome if he goes to trial and loses, that even innocent defendants now plead guilty. A system characterized by extravagant trial penalties produces guilty pleas in cases where the government cannot satisfy its’ burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the person is guilty or innocent.

Misconduct and mistakes by law enforcement, witnesses and prosecutors are only revealed through an open and public trial. When the trial process is subverted and limited to only a few select cases, mistakes and misconduct go undetected and result in innocent lives spending years incarcerated. Moreover, when misconduct goes undetected, it flourishes and expands. There are many recent examples of police detectives in various jurisdictions planting evidence, using the same corrupt informant to identify alleged homicide suspects, and other miscarriages of justice.

Robert Stahl, and his firm, Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. Founder Robert G. Stahl is recognized as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the NY/NJ area for his skills, knowledge and success. To contact the firm, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

A felony conviction has a serious impact on a defendant’s life, even beyond the obvious immediate consequences of sentencing. A person who has a felony conviction on their record forfeits certain rights that other members of the community enjoy. In some jurisdictions there exists a process by which an individual can seek to have a felony conviction expunged from their record, but even this process may not fully restore every right and privilege that the person held prior to their conviction.

Civic Participation

The right to participate in the civic process is one of the most fundamental rights of citizenship, but that right may be temporarily or permanently lost as the result of a felony conviction. Persons with such a conviction on their record may not vote, sit on a jury, or serve as a notary public. The terms of this disenfranchisement vary by state; some states permanently revoke these civil rights, and a person seeking to regain them must submit a petition for pardon or clemency. In other states, felons retain their right to vote even while serving their prison sentence (albeit by absentee ballot). Most states fall somewhere in between. New York and New Jersey restore an ex-offender’s voting rights after their sentence has been completely served, including incarceration and parole. In New Jersey, any probation must also be completed before civil rights are restored.

Firearms

Another significant restriction on the rights of former felony offenders involves possession of firearms. Any person convicted of a felony offense may not legally possess a firearm – even a hunting rifle – unless they have had their rights restored by the appropriate government agency. This is a much more significant hurdle than getting one’s voting rights restored, and the process involved depends on whether the person was convicted under state or federal law. The nature of the felony is irrelevant; even non-violent offenses result in the forfeiture of the offender’s gun rights.

Public Assistance

There are many forms of government aid directed toward people experiencing financial need that become unavailable to an individual if they are convicted of a felony. This includes student loans, housing aid, and several other financial assistance programs. This can be a problem for many former offenders, who may find their opportunities for legitimate employment limited as a result of their criminal record.

Deportation

A felony conviction can have even more serious consequences for individuals who are not United States citizens. There are large categories of felony crimes for which conviction may result in a non-citizen resident of the US being deported to their country of origin – even if they are residing in the country legally and with all proper documentation. The kinds of crime that may trigger deportation proceedings include aggravated felonies and “crimes of moral turpitude.” The latter category is poorly defined, but generally includes crimes involving fraud or deception, theft, or the intent to cause harm to others. Crimes of moral turpitude can result in deportation if the crime is committed within five years of the offender’s legal entry into the United States, or if the offender commits two or more such crimes (on separate occasions) regardless of the length of time since entering the country.

An aggravated felony includes any of a wide variety of serious offenses, including murder, sexual assault or abuse, treason or espionage, drug or weapons trafficking, and financial crimes such as fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion. Conviction of any of these crimes is almost certain to result in deportation unless the offender can prove that they are likely to be tortured upon return to their country of origin.

Employment Ramifications

A felony conviction is likely to make an individual’s professional future more challenging, not because of any direct government action, but because employers may hesitate to hire applicants who have committed felony offenses. The outlook for ex-offenders does improve with time, however, assuming they avoid any additional charges going forward. It’s critical to remember that while an applicant may have a harder time finding an employer willing to hire them with a felony on their record, lying to an employer about a criminal past is almost certain to result in firing when the employer finds out.

A felony conviction for licensed professionals in the fields of medicine, accounting, law, real estate and the like face an additional burden of losing their licenses to practice in their chosen fields. These individuals will have an especially hard time returning to work after a felony conviction.

A felony conviction is likely to change an individual’s life in many ways, some of which they may not initially expect, which makes the help of experienced legal representation critical for anyone facing felony charges.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908.301.9001 for our NJ office and 212.755.3300 for our NYC office, or email us at rstahl@stahlesq.com.