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.

Laura K. Gasiorowski, a partner at Stahl Gasiorowski and an alumna of Tulane Law School, recently returned to her alma mater to lead a class on negotiating pleas for juvenile clients, as well as those with mental health issues and intellectual or developmental disabilities. Invited for her extensive experience in representing defendants with complex needs and her work in death penalty mitigation, Ms. Gasiorowski offered valuable insights into the unique ethical and legal challenges faced when advocating for clients whose disabilities, youth, or mental health conditions may impact their understanding of the legal process.

Ms. Gasiorowski emphasized the critical need for defense attorneys to recognize “red flags” in a client’s history—such as indicators in school records, family backgrounds, medical documentation, or personal interactions—that may suggest intellectual disabilities or mental health issues. These factors can profoundly affect an attorney’s approach to the case, as a client’s age, disability, or mental health condition may hinder effective communication, comprehension of legal matters, or the ability to waive constitutional rights. Disabilities can also impact a client’s interactions with law enforcement, which may be pivotal when evaluating the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver, consent to search, or failure to comply with police instructions.

Mental health and intellectual disabilities may further raise issues of competency or mens rea, directly affecting a client’s capacity to participate in their defense or understand court proceedings. In such cases, specific accommodations may be necessary to ensure fair representation throughout the trial process.

A key takeaway from Ms. Gasiorowski’s class was the importance of using expert evaluations and specialized testing to build a compelling mitigation report. Such reports can be essential in plea negotiations, as they provide prosecutors with a clearer understanding of a client’s diminished culpability. At Stahl Gasiorowski, Ms. Gasiorowski and her colleagues leverage this mitigation approach to advocate for dismissals, negotiated pleas, or reduced sentences for clients who, due to their unique circumstances, warrant special consideration.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers

At Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers, we have successfully defended hundreds of individuals targeted by investigations or formally accused of state and federal crimes. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully defended individuals and companies charged by federal and state authorities for white collar crimes including Insider Trading/Securities Fraud, Healthcare Fraud, Drug Crimes, Domestic Violence and Tax Crimes, and more.

The firm was founded in 1997 and our criminal defense attorneys have more than 60 years of combined criminal law experience for both defense and prosecution. This invaluable experience on both sides of criminal matters is key to our success. Contact Laura Gasiorowski by email at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com or Robert G. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com, online www.stahlesq.com, or phone 908-301-9001 for NJ and 212-755-3300 for NY.

In response to a dramatic surge in car thefts across New Jersey, State Attorney General Matt Platkin announced today that he is reversing a policy that prevented police officers from pursuing stolen cars. In late 2021, Platkin effected a statewide policy that prohibited police from chasing a stolen car unless they suspected it had been used in the most serious of crimes, such as murder, vehicular homicide or kidnapping. Thus, the A.G.’s policy prohibited police from pursuing a car simply because it had been stolen.

After scores of stolen vehicles, and complaints from citizens, local government officials and police, Platkin relented to now permit police to chase a car they think has been stolen.

Last year, Platkin said he wanted to limit police chases because high-speed car chases are dangerous, and can put police officers and innocent drivers alike at risk. It was part of an overhaul led by Governor Murphy to reduce the use of force by police. However, with motor vehicle thefts up 127% from last January state officials recognized that the policy needed to be changed.

In addition, Platkin and Gov. Murphy announced that the state would use $10 million in American Rescue Plan funds to purchase automated license plate recognition technology. The funds will allow local police departments to purchase high-speed, automated camera systems that capture and store computer-readable images of license plates. These license-plate readers will be placed at “strategic locations throughout” towns and the N.J. State Police will also deploy cameras along major highways.

According to the Attorney General’s office, the most commonly stolen luxury vehicles are BMW X6, Land Rover Range Rover Sport, Audi Q5 and BMW X3.

The top vehicles stolen statewide in 2022 include Honda Accord, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Honda CR-V, BMW X5 and BMW 3-Series.

High speed chases are dangerous to the officers involved, as well as innocent drivers and pedestrians that may be injured when the stolen vehicle or the police crash. Police must use common sense, as well as policy guidelines, in their pursuits. More often than not, a stolen vehicle is just that – stolen – not a car being used to commit a serious felony. Many high end cars are stolen from wealthy suburbs because the owners negligently leave the keys in their car in their driveway or unlocked garage. Others are left running at convenience stores while their owners run in for a quick purchase. These types of thefts are crimes of opportunity and can be easily eliminated. Other car thefts involve use of force, specialized electronic equipment or fraudulent schemes that obtain access to vehicles that are much more difficult to combat.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience representing 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.

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.

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.

Much has been written about Paul Manafort’s conviction at his first trial, the potential decades long sentence, and his sudden plea and cooperation deal shortly before his second trial was scheduled to begin. This sequence of events alone is unusual as most defendants decide to cooperate in an effort to reduce their potential sentence well-prior to trial. Moreover, most federal prosecutors do not want to cooperate with a defendant who has contested charges, gone to trial and lost. Most unusual, and damaging to Manafort, is his apparent violation or beach of the cooperation agreement by his alleged lies to the government.

To briefly review, cooperation with the government means that an individual must meet with the Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and federal agents to be debriefed about their entire history of criminal activities, both in the charged case, as well as any prior criminal activity, and provide “substantial assistance” to the United States. Substantial assistance means completely truthful, useful, material information about the criminal activity being investigated and any corroborating evidence such as documents, emails, texts, recorded conversations and the like. The government – the AUSAs and the agents – alone decide whether the person has provided substantial assistance. If the government decides that the defendant provided substantial assistance, the AUSAs submit a motion to the sentencing court moving for a downward departure under section 5K1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

If the government determines that the defendant either failed to provide substantial assistance, or that he breached the terms of the cooperation agreement by lying or committing other criminal offenses, then the government at its sole discretion has the right to withhold the motion for a downward departure. The government may also choose to bring additional charges for obstruction of justice or lying to federal officials.

If Manafort lied to the government and breached his plea and cooperation agreement, he has put himself in the absolute worst position for sentencing. His plea of guilty cannot be withdrawn, the judge will sentence him on the plea terms without the benefit of the downward departure for his cooperation, may refuse the normal time off for acceptance of responsibility, and can take into consideration the fact that Manafort lied to the government in a continuing effort to conceal and obfuscate his criminal conduct and that of others.

When a defendant makes a decision to cooperate, it is imperative that he follow through on all terms and conditions to receive the maximum benefit for that cooperation. Experienced white-collar defense counsel will have spent considerable time reviewing the client’s options, the potential risks versus benefits of cooperation, and preparing their client for the many proffers and meetings the client and attorney will have with the government.

In cases that have a number of cooperators, or have been investigated extensively,

A purported cooperator who attempts to:

• minimize his conduct or that of others,
• withhold information, or
• mislead investigators

faces greater chances of being caught because of all the information and evidence at the government’s disposal.

While successful cooperation often results in greatly reduced time in prison, or probation, failed cooperation often leads to much harsher sentencing.

In time, we will learn what the government claims Manafort did to breach his agreement and what his fate will be. Whatever the result, this is a case that defense counsel dreads as their client failed to abide by the terms of the agreement — and put himself in a much worse position for sentencing. Defense counsel can only do so much to prepare and protect their client, it is ultimately up to the client to fulfill the terms of the negotiated agreement.

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.

Rick Gates, Paul Manafort’s former business partner, is the star witness in the first trial resulting from the Special Counsel’s Russia collusion investigation in federal court in Virginia. Gates pled guilty to felony charges and agreed to testify against Manafort in an effort to receive a substantially reduced sentence. The government and defense agree on one thing – the cooperating defendant/witness is guilty of financial crimes, moral misdeeds and has lied repeatedly in the past. Despite that, Gates is on the witness stand, under oath testifying as a government witness in a highly publicized trial of great public interest.

While this may seem odd to some, it happens in federal and state courts around the country every day of the week. Often the best evidence of a criminal conspiracy comes from an insider – a co-conspirator – to the very criminal acts charged. A cooperating defendant is useful to explain to the jury each defendants’ role, how the criminal conduct was carried out, the true meaning of the tape-recorded conversations, the flow of the fraudulent paperwork and financial transactions, and the efforts to conceal the crime. Typically, in a multi-defendant case the government will use a cooperator(s) that has information about the higher ups in the conspiracy – the more culpable leaders of the criminal conduct – to explain their roles and actions to the jury. A complicated, relatively boring paper intensive white-collar case with thousands of documents and financial transactions becomes much more interesting to a jury through a cooperator’s testimony.

The government explains to the jury that the cooperator has a plea agreement with the government whereby he pled to serious charges and has agreed to tell the truth in exchange for leniency at sentencing. In the federal system, the cooperator in the vast majority of cases has no idea or guarantee of what benefit he will receive because it is solely up to the judge to determine the extent of the departure from the sentencing guidelines. If the cooperator has fulfilled his agreement with the government, the prosecutor will file a departure motion describing the nature and extent of the cooperation to the court prior to sentencing. In many state systems, the prosecutor and the cooperator actually sentence bargain and agree to a specific sentence in exchange for the cooperation and testimony.

While the defense’s goal is to demonstrate that the cooperator is a liar, a fraud, and a despicable person not to be trusted who is simply lying in order to get his deal, the prosecutor usually has additional evidence that substantiates or corroborates what the cooperator testifies to. That corroboration can come in many forms – other witness statements, emails, text messages, documents, bank records, recorded conversations and the like. In an effort to blunt the effect of the cooperator’s bad acts and prior lies, the prosecutor will usually be the first to tell the jury about them in the government’s opening statement and on direct examination. By fronting the bad information before the defense has the opportunity to reveal it, the prosecution hopes that the jury sees that the prosecutor is not afraid of the information or is trying to conceal it from them. This is what is known as “taking the sting” out of the bad acts of the cooperator.

At the end of the trial the jury will likely hear in the prosecutor’s summation that the government can’t chose its witnesses, that it was the defendant who first chose to work with the person they now call a liar not worthy of belief. The prosecutor will also point out that the jury doesn’t have to believe anything the cooperator said unless it is confirmed by other evidence.

In the Manafort trial it is likely that the government will say something to the effect – “Ladies and gentlemen, the government agrees that Gates committed multiple crimes and lied in his everyday life. He admitted that to you here in court. You don’t have to like Gates to understand that what he said here was corroborated by all the other evidence presented. And when the defense attacks him as a low life liar and despicable human being, remember that it was Mr. Manafort who chose him as a business partner and ultimately a co-conspirator in his crimes.”

And while all of that may be true in many cases, there are still thousands of cases where a cooperating defendant lied or exaggerated others’ roles or conduct simply to benefit himself at sentencing. Attacking the credibility of a cooperating defendant is of utmost importance in aggressively defending a client charged as part of a conspiracy.

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.

President Trump tweeted that Michael Cohen, his former lawyer and “fixer”, won’t flip on him. Putting aside for the moment why the President would say this if Cohen didn’t have incriminating evidence against him – because one could only “flip” on someone if they did – let’s examine why people charged with crimes cooperate with law enforcement.

When someone is charged with a serious crime and the evidence is strong, rather than fighting the charge they may try to mitigate their exposure to a lengthy prison sentence by offering detailed information against their co-conspirators in an effort to win a downward departure motion at sentencing. In the federal system, where the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines often result in an advisory sentencing range of many years in prison – in addition to substantial fines, forfeiture and restitution – a defendant’s “substantial assistance” to the government against others often results in a substantially reduced sentence.

Substantial assistance means that the defendant provides detailed evidence against his co-conspirators in the scheme that can be corroborated by other evidence. Before being offered a cooperation agreement, the defendant is thoroughly debriefed by prosecutors and agents to determine whether he is being truthful and complete. The cooperator must provide useful information and potential testimony against others – what each co-conspirator did to advance the scheme – along with any physical evidence such as records, documents and the like, that substantiates what he says. The government usually wants a cooperating defendant to provide information about others that are just as culpable as him, or more so, meaning higher up in the criminal activity.

To cooperate or flip, the person must reveal all prior criminal activity he has been involved in over the course of his life, not just the current charged conduct. The reason for this is that the government must determine not only the person’s truthfulness, but also whether the person will be credible witness or be subject to potentially debilitating cross-examination based upon his prior offenses.

Given the potential for a lengthy sentence, and in the federal system there is no early release on parole that reduces the amount of time spent in prison as in many state systems, there is a strong incentive for defendants involved in complex, multi-defendant crimes to cooperate. Anyone involved in criminal conduct with someone who has been charged would be naïve at best to think that the person would never cooperate against them. Self-preservation and the hope of receiving no time or substantially less time is a very strong motivator, regardless of how close the defendant is to that person.

In Michael Cohen’s case, even if he decides to cooperate, the government must first decide whether his information is credible and valuable, whether it is against others that are worth offering Cohen a reduced sentence and whether and how much any of his prior potential criminal conduct will undermine his credibility. As for Cohen himself, he must decide whether any potential prior criminal conduct will expose him to additional charges and whether he has sufficient information and evidence to receive the benefit of that cooperation – no time in prison or a substantially reduced sentence.

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.

Just the other day, “Bridgegate” cooperator and former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey official David Wildstein, was sentenced in federal court to probation. The two defendants that he cooperated against were sentenced to 24 months and 19 months in federal prison. Despite the fact that Wildstein pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy for his role in the offense, and faced several years in prison, the sentencing judge granted the government’s downward departure motion for a much more lenient sentence – in this case probation.

In the federal system cooperators, those conspirators who assist the government by providing truthful information, assistance and testimony to the government, are rewarded at sentencing with a motion filed under section 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines that permits the court to depart below the advisory guideline range specified for the particular offense and its enhancements.

There are several types of cooperation that may merit these types of sentence reductions. For example, if a person is confronted by the FBI while the investigation is still pending and is interviewed about their alleged participation in an ongoing crime, she may decide to cooperate with the FBI. This cooperation could include giving truthful information about her activities and those of her co-coconspirators, and to proactively work with the agents by recording phone calls and meetings with the others involved under the direction of the FBI. In instances where conspirators have already been arrested and charged, a person could agree to cooperate with the prosecution by providing evidence and testimony against the others charged.

In either scenario, it is critical that the person has an experienced federal criminal defense attorney representing them to fully protect their rights and to make sure that they obtain the best possible result. The attorney must evaluate the client’s potential cooperation and determine whether it is of the kind and nature that would meet the threshold for such a downward departure motion. Experienced defense counsel must also prepare his client for the proffer with the government to make sure the client will make the best possible presentation and truthfully and accurately convey the information.

If the government decides that the person has provided “substantial assistance to the United States,” then the prosecutor will file a formal motion at the time of sentencing for the court to depart below the advisory Guideline range. The letter-motion will also include the details of the person’s cooperation and how significant it was to the prosecution. Experienced defense counsel will also submit a lengthy sentencing brief, along with relevant letters from family and friends, explaining why the client should receive the maximum benefit – largest downward departure – for the cooperation.

While a cooperation agreement is not possible in all cases, or even appropriate in many instances, in the right case it does provide an alternative to trial or simply pleading guilty to the lowest possible offense and exposure. Only experienced federal criminal defense counsel can properly evaluate the client’s case, information and potential for cooperation.

Contact NJ & NY Criminal Defense Attorneys

Protect your rights.

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 rstahl@stahlesq.com. Or Contact us online.

A plea agreement is the negotiated resolution of a criminal case between the government and the defense when the client decides to plead guilty rather than fighting the charges at trial. The benefit of a plea agreement is that the plea is usually to a lower offense or a limited number of charges rather than to the most severe charge(s). In most instances, a defendant is rewarded in some fashion for pleading guilty rather than going to trial. In the State of New Jersey, the defendant’s attorney can negotiate a plea to the specific charges and the length of the sentence. This is commonly referred to as sentence bargaining. The plea form will be in writing with all of the terms that have been agreed to between the defense attorney and the Assistant Prosecutor. The form – New Jersey Judiciary Plea Form – lists the charges the person is pleading to along with the statutory maximum period of incarceration, fines and penalties. The form also lists the specific sentence the prosecutor has agreed to recommend, along with any other agreements between the parties.

In almost every case, the sentencing judge abides by the terms negotiated between the defense and the prosecutor. If the judge does not agree at sentencing to the negotiated terms, the defendant has the right to either withdraw his plea and go to trial, or accept the sentence the judge imposes. If the defendant decides to withdraw his plea, nothing the defendant said under oath at the time of the plea can be used at trial against the defendant.

In the federal system, a plea agreement is much different and offers fewer protections and less certainty of sentence to the defendant. The standard plea agreement in the District of New Jersey provides for the charge(s) that the defendant will plead to, the time period covered by the agreement and any stipulations between the parties. Typically, the parties’ stipulations will cover the base level offense under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and any additional enhancements/points for amount of loss, role in the offense and other offense offense-specific categories.

The benefit to the defendant is that he or she pleads to a limited number of offenses, often negotiating a lower loss amount or drug quantity, and has limited other possible enhancements through the stipulations (agreement) between the parties. In addition, the defendant receives points off the total offense level for acceptance of responsibility (pleading guilty rather than going to trial). A federal plea agreement most often limits the person’s exposure and reduces the possible sentence under the circumstances.

Unlike the state system, however, the federal court is not bound by the stipulations between the parties and the defendant is not allowed to withdraw his plea if the court sentences a defendant to a longer period of incarceration than agreed to in the plea agreement. Here in the District of New Jersey, there is an added stipulation that the defendant waives his right to appeal the sentence if the court sentences the person at or below the stipulated guideline range. Should the court sentence above the agreed upon range, then the right to appeal is preserved.

It is vital that a person charged in the federal system be represented by an experienced federal criminal defense attorney. Plea bargaining in the federal system is quite different from that in the state, and offers far greater uncertainties in the ultimate sentence. While in the state system the sentence is agreed to by the parties, in the federal system the defense must draft and submit a detailed, compelling sentencing submission to the court in order for the client to receive the best possible sentence.

Contact NJ & NY Criminal Defense Attorneys

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex state and federal 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 rstahl@stahlesq.com. Or Contact us online.

Your client comes to you and says that he “wants his day in court,” he wants to fight the charges all the way and that he will never plead. You sit down and carefully review the facts of the case, the evidence known to date, the potential defenses, and eventually the potential penalties he faces. You then discuss what it will cost to defend the case, the amount of time and money it will take to thoroughly review the discovery, conduct your own investigation, research the issues involved, draft the motions, argue the motions, trial preparation and trial. The client sits there stunned. Having never before had to pay for anything more than a simple will, real estate closing or speeding ticket, the idea that the aggressive, full on defense that he wants and needs will cost tens of thousands of dollars for a typical state case, and perhaps hundreds of thousands for a federal case, is sobering.

Unfortunately, this is the reality of modern criminal defense. In serious cases – where the client is facing state or federal prison time, restitution, fines and penalties, and the loss of any professional license – the costs of an aggressive, effective defense are substantial. Clients are faced with doing something that they never thought of before – going to friends and family for financial assistance to afford the best possible defense. Add to that, the prospect of raising bail once the charges are brought, either posting cash or real property to secure their release.

Is it any wonder then that the current statistics show that approximately 97% of federal cases, and approximately 95% of state cases, plead? Between the financial costs of properly defending a case, and the harsh penalties that befall someone who loses at trial, the odds are that the typical criminal defense attorney spends substantially more time settling cases rather than trying them.

At Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers, we are dedicated to protecting our clients’ rights and liberties. We have substantial trial experience in matters ranging from federal frauds, murder-for-hire, money laundering, drug trafficking, domestic violence and DWI. When the evidence is over whelming, or the client does not want a trial, we use our deep knowledge of the law, the potential defenses, the weaknesses of the government’s case and our reputations built over decades of successful cases, to negotiate the best possible resolution for our clients. If the case does go to trial, we have the experience, ability and courtroom skills to aggressively defend our client before a jury.

We pride ourselves on our relationships with our clients. We have open and honest discussions about their cases, defenses and the real costs associated with each step.

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.

The actual procedures for pre-trial negotiation are laid out in federal sentencing guidelines. These guidelines break plea negotiations down into multiple sub-categories, the three most common being charge bargaining, sentencing recommendations and specific agreed sentences.

Charge bargaining often involves negotiations for someone accused of multiple crimes to agree to plead guilty to one charge in exchange for dismissal of the other charges. Although it is seemingly simple in theory, charge bargaining can actually be a complex matter because it is subject to additional considerations know as “relevant conduct” and “multi-count grouping,” both of which can affect the outcome of the negotiations. If the charge bargain does not work out successfully, the defendant has the option of withdrawing the guilty plea to the negotiated charge.

Sentencing recommendations involve the prosecution’s agreement in exchange for a guilty plea to either recommend a particular sentence, or to agree not to oppose the imposition of a given sentence. These agreements have no binding effect: if the court refuses to go along with the sentencing recommendation, withdrawal of the guilty plea is not possible.

A specific sentencing agreement is similar to a sentencing recommendation, except that it is binding in nature. This does not mean that the court cannot refuse to impose the agreed-upon sentence; but if it does, then unlike a sentencing recommendation the defendant can withdraw his or her guilty plea to the bargained-for charge. Binding sentencing agreements can still be subject to other sentencing guidelines, however, so they must be carefully negotiated to avoid being negated by criteria outside of the agreement.

There are other types of plea bargaining than the three above. And as has been pointed out, the most common forms of plea bargaining require knowledge of how federal criminal rules and sentencing guidelines work to avoid running into trouble later on. This is where having a defense law firm that is already experienced with defending against federal charges and with negotiating federal plea and sentencing mitigation can be very important.

The stages of a criminal case as it proceeds through the legal system can be confusing for individuals who find themselves on the wrong end of legal charges for the first time. Though popular media has no shortage of stories set within the criminal justice system, these fictional depictions often leave out important details. When a substantial portion of your personal and professional future hangs in the balance, it’s critical to have a complete and accurate understanding of the steps through which your criminal case will proceed.

Criminal Arrest

A criminal case begins with an investigation into alleged criminal conduct. The formal process begins when an individual accused of a crime is taken into custody by law enforcement. To make an arrest, the law enforcement officer must either be present at the time the crime is committed and see it happen, or have an arrest warrant for the suspect in question. Arrest warrants may be obtained by law enforcement when they can present probable cause that a given individual committed the crime. There are certain procedures, determined by the jurisdiction, that an arresting officer must follow for a legitimate arrest.

Criminal Charges

The accused has the right to be informed of the crime(s) for which they are being charged, either at the time of the arrest or as promptly thereafter as is practical.

Initial Appearance

This is usually the first occasion on which a given criminal case comes before a judge. Generally the initial appearance must occur within 24 hours of the arrest. During this appearance, the identity of the accused is confirmed, the criminal charges against them are explained, and the accused is informed of their rights (to remain silent, and to be represented by an attorney). Public defenders are assigned to defendants who cannot afford a lawyer.

Preliminary Hearing

An accused defendant has the right to be present and represented by an attorney at this hearing, the purpose of which is to present and challenge evidence that shows probable cause to believe that a criminal act was indeed committed, and that the defendant was the perpetrator. Evidence may be presented at this stage to support or dispute these claims. If the Judge determines that the State failed to demonstrate that there was probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a crime, the charges are dismissed and the defendant released. The State can avoid a probable cause hearing by presenting the case to the grand jury and obtaining an indictment. The indictment is proof that the grand jury found sufficient probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime(s)charged.

Bail or Detention Hearing

If not already determined at the defendant’s initial appearance before the court, a separate hearing is convened to establish whether bail is appropriate, and if so, in what amount.

Grand Jury

Felony cases in some jurisdictions involve a grand jury indictment rather than a preliminary hearing. In these cases, a grand jury consisting of private citizens sworn to secrecy hears evidence only from the prosecutor, the defense is not permitted to participate. The grand jury in a criminal case has the power to compel testimony from concerned parties, including the victim. After investigating, the grand jury votes on whether to indict or dismiss.

Arraignment

At this stage of a criminal case, the defendant is formally presented with the charges against them contained in the indictment and enters a plea.

Pre-Trial Hearings

Before the trial begins, both the prosecution and the defense may introduce motions to address outstanding issues pertaining to the case, which are ruled upon by the judge.

Plea Negotiations

Instead of proceeding to trial, the defendant may choose plead guilty to the original charge or a lesser charge, in exchange for some form of consideration from the prosecution – often involving either dropping other charges or recommending a specific sentence. The court has the option to accept or reject the plea agreement; if it is rejected, the defendant may withdraw their plea.

Criminal Trial

If the case is not dismissed or resolved with a plea agreement, it goes to trial before a jury. This is perhaps the most well-recognized portion of a criminal case. Jurors are selected, evidence is presented, witnesses are questioned and cross-examined. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot, the defense attorney may ask for a judgment of acquittal.

Verdict

If the trial is completed without a judgment of acquittal, dismissal, or plea agreement, the jury withdraws to consider the facts and reach a verdict, which is then presented to the court. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty, the defendant is released. Otherwise, the case proceeds to sentencing.

Sentencing

The sentence received by the defendant is often determined at a separate hearing. Both the prosecution and the defense present evidence regarding the appropriate punishment, and the judge makes the final determination.

Appeals

You may appeal the ruling in your criminal case to a higher court if you believe an error or inappropriate action resulted in an unfair decision. Appeals are difficult to win, and your attorney can help you determine whether you have grounds for an appeal.

The experienced attorneys at Robert G. 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 Mountainside, New Jersey office and 212-755-3300 for our New York City office, or email us at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.