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

In many types of criminal cases, the right expert can be invaluable. Whether it is a forensic accountant in a complex fraud or tax investigation; a medical or billing expert in a healthcare fraud investigation; a forensic psychiatrist for a sex abuse or child pornography case; a computer expert for a computer crimes matter or to download and organize a searchable database for millions of documents in discovery; or a drug or gang expert in a serious drug case, the proper expert retained early in the investigation can assist the client’s criminal defense attorney in their efforts to prevent the charges from being filed, or to assist in developing a defense to aid in plea negotiations or to prevail at trial.

Often the government employs or hires its own experts to analyze a wide variety of data, information or documents. These government “experts” may be recognized in their fields, or they may be opining on evidence in fields in which they are not truly qualified. It is critical in such cases, that the defense attorney have at his disposal the best possible expert in the relevant field of inquiry to conduct their own review and analysis of the evidence and to potentially refute the conclusion of the government expert.

In recent years, there have been notable cases that have demonstrated that government “experts” have either overreached or provided false reports and testimony. For instance, state drug labs around the country have discovered state laboratory technicians that have failed to conduct drug tests on tens of thousands of drug seizures and simply falsified their reports. Other so-called experts have opined on subjects that do not meet generally accepted scientific standards, including hair and fiber analysis, bite marks and lead analysis of bullets. Too often the testimony by these alleged experts have resulted in convictions based on false or unsound results.
Experts can be used to analyze the evidence and discover the weaknesses or fallacies in the government’s theory of the case. The ability to independently review and analyze varied and complex financial transactions, computer code, thousands of emails and attachments, billing records or scientific results can mean the difference between a conviction and acquittal. In addition, most fraud cases and potential sentences are driven by the loss amount. Experts can provide valuable analysis that reduces the loss amount and the potential sentencing ranges.

Aggressive, experienced defense attorneys use experts as early in the process as possible. There are certain procedures that must be followed to protect and preserve the attorney-client and work-product privileges. To do so, the law firm retains the expert to work under the firm’s supervision and direction. While the client is responsible for the fees and expenses, the expert communicates with the law firm rather than with the client so that the expert cannot be cross-examined by the government about any statements or information provided by the client.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience using experts in their representation of individuals charged with federal and state felonies. 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.

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.

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.

Newly sworn in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg issued new policies and procedures to his staff that substantially altered existing office policy in prosecuting criminal cases. The new directive defers certain prosecutions for lower-level offenses, reduces certain felony offenses, prohibits seeking life in prison without parole, and prohibits seeking bail except in limited violent offenses.

Bragg ran on a progressive platform that promised to overhaul the system and to reduce the number of people behind bars. His first major directive seeks to implement his ideology toward charging, bail and sentencing in the face of rising crime rates throughout the city and calls from officials and the public to crack down on crime. The new policies are a reflection of the DA’s personal experiences growing up in New York, as well as his goal to link safety with fairness.

In broad strokes, the new policy calls for

1. More diversion and alternatives to incarceration for individuals in crisis and youthful offenders;
2. Reduction in pretrial incarceration, recognizing the ongoing multitude of problems in Rikers, limiting such incarceration to violent crimes and limited exceptions;
3. A focus in sentencing on accountability rather than the length of the sentence as research shows that certain longer sentences do not deter crime or provide greater community safety;
4. Limit youthful offenders (up to age 25) in adult court system; and
5. Actively support those reentering society after their prison terms.

This sweeping directive affects decisions regarding charging, pretrial
detention, dispositions, cases involving juveniles and charges against non-citizens. It represents a major shift in existing policy that called for charging the most serious offenses possible in the majority of cases. As for non-citizens, the directive calls for avoiding dispositions that would affect immigration status and lead to potential removal from the country.

Many of the directive’s goals are laudatory and long overdue. Prosecutors around the country routinely and reflexively charge the most serious possible offenses rather than examining the specific facts, background of the individuals, mitigating circumstances and other relevant information. At the charging phase, defendants are broadly categorized and face lengthy prison sentences.

The new policy requires ADAs to examine each case individually, based on the type of the offense, the age and circumstances of the defendant and other relevant factors. By doing so at the charging phase, rather than at sentencing where many jurisdictions limit judges’ discretion through sentencing guidelines and mandatory-minimum laws, DA Bragg believes that fairness will result in greater safety to the community. Time will tell whether the new policy will yield the intended results.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all your criminal legal needs. We are experienced in all types of complex criminal matters involving a many types of electronic evidence. 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.

When someone is facing criminal charges they usually worry about the effects on family, reputation and their freedom. And while one’s freedom is of primary importance, there are also serious collateral consequences from a guilty plea or conviction. The loss of voting rights, inability to own firearms, loss or suspension of professional licenses and freedom of movement are some of the long-lasting effects of a criminal record.

In addition to travel restrictions that may be imposed by probation, parole or the court, many countries will not allow entry of persons with criminal records. Some countries only ban visitors with recent, serious criminal violations, while others are much stricter and ban those with even minor or very old convictions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are particularly vigilant about visitors with even relatively minor criminal records. The United Kingdom routinely denies entry to visitors with convictions that are less than 10 years old or ones that resulted in prison sentences of 30 months or more. European Union countries are generally less restrictive, but may prohibit entry if the sentence was greater than 3 years.

Entry into the United States is strictly monitored by U.S. Customs. Visitors convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude and aggravated felonies are prohibited from entry or obtaining Visas. These categories of crimes are very broad and encompass most types of offenses.

Just recently, U.S. citizens who have been convicted of sex offenses against children will be issued special passports that contain a declaration stating that fact. Under new legislation known as International Meagan’s Law, Homeland Security will notify the State Department to revoke the passports of citizens with these types of convictions. They will then be issued a new passport containing a declaration of the offense. This new law is intended to “protect children and others from sexual abuse and exploitation, including sex trafficking and sex tourism.”

When planning to travel abroad, those with convictions should check the country’s website for specific information about the types of offenses that will prohibit their entry.

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 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

Criminal defense attorneys representing non-citizen defendants are obligated to provide advice regarding the immigration consequences of a plea or guilty verdict. The Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla made it clear that failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.

This is because a conviction may render a defendant removable (subject to deportation), inadmissible or both under complex immigration laws. Aggravated felonies, for instance, subject a defendant to mandatory removal. Importantly, an experienced and inventive defense attorney may be able to negotiate a plea to charges with no immigration consequences. Regardless of whether a non-citizen defendant faces trial or decides to plead, the decision must be made with full understanding of the immigration consequences. The question is how specific that advice must be; is it sufficient to advise a client that a conviction may or could result in removal/deportation?

Defense attorneys should take note of a recent First Department decision, People v. Doumbia. In this New York state appeal, the Court held that Doumbia’s attorney’s advice that he “could” be deported, when his guilty plea for attempted robbery made deportation a certainty, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Interestingly, Doumbia did not file a CPL 440.1 motion, but made his ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal. The dissent argued that because there might be avenues for avoiding even mandatory deportation, such as youthful offender treatment, an attorney’s duty under Padilla is only to inform the client that there is a risk or possibility that he or she may be deported. The majority, however, opined that such a standard not only undermined the Sixth Amendment protection afforded the non-citizen defendant, but would also conflict with the concept of a “truly informed” plea bargain. Lawyers have an affirmative duty to inform clients about the consequences of criminal convictions with as much specificity as possible.

Doumbia makes clear how important it is for noncitizen defendants facing criminal charges to have experienced counsel explain the immigration consequences of a plea; whatever post plea strategy counsel may have under the circumstances, the client must first be made aware that for certain convictions, removal/deportation is not merely a risk or a possibility, but mandatory. Unfortunately, in many cases defense attorneys do not fully investigate immigration consequences or put the onus on the client to seek the advice of immigration counsel.

At the Law Offices of Robert G. Stahl, the attorneys are experienced in representing noncitizens charged with state and federal crimes, and can fully and specifically advise clients on the immigration consequences of a conviction so that the client can make a knowing and informed decision. We frequently negotiate with prosecutors to charge defendants alternatively to avoid immigration consequences, to limit loss in certain fraud cases, or otherwise minimize or eliminate the risk that our client might face exile from their family through removal.

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 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.

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.

In the eyes of the law, you can become a federal criminal suspect almost anywhere and at any time. When you are at home, at the office, hiking in the forest, driving your car, sitting at your computer, buying and selling goods, and more. Federal rules, regulations and laws and the agencies in charge of enforcing them can touch upon almost any aspect of your waking moments. The employees who work for these agencies know what to look for in your behaviors; do you?

And remember, just because you didn’t mean to commit a crime or didn’t know that you are committing one will not necessarily help you if you stand accused: you have likely heard it said that “Ignorance is no defense,” and in the context of criminal law unless there is a specific mens rea requirement for intent on your part that statement can be all too true.

At the Law Offices of Robert G Stahl, we understand that you cannot become an expert on all aspects of how federal law can touch upon your life and how you can run afoul of it without even knowing that you have done so. Even if you were to try, new laws, rules and regulations are being formulated practically every day. Keeping up with them all would amount to a full time (and unpaid) job for you, and you have more productive things to do. Fortunately, if you stand accused by the federal government of having committed a crime big or small in the states of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, we have the experience and ability to interpose ourselves between you and the government investigators and prosecutors.

Sometimes the things that your own government can accuse you of can appear to be ridiculous. But if you do find yourself in the crosshairs of the federal government taking your defense seriously is something that you should – and we do – take very seriously. To learn more about how we represent our clients accused of committing federal crimes, see our website. If you have questions or need assistance, contact us to arrange for an initial consultation with one of our criminal defense attorneys.