Our firm’s attorneys have over a decade of experience obtaining successful results for our clients in federal trials, federal appeals, and post-conviction proceedings. We have handled a wide range of federal cases, including federal firearm, drug, sex, and fraud charges, as well as more specialized kinds of cases involving international sanctions, government benefits fraud, labor trafficking, and “pill mill” cases. We have helped dozens of people get out of federal prison as well, either through appeals or sentence reduction petitions.

• Drug Conspiracy Charges

• Money Laundering Charges

• Wire Fraud Charges

• PPP Loan Fraud Investigations

• Child Pornography Charges

• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

• Healthcare Fraud Charges

• Criminal Copyright Infringement

• False Statement Charges

• Obstruction of Justice Charges

• Federal Bribery Charges

• Federal Tax Crimes

• Federal Firearm Laws

• Environmental Crimes

• “Pill Mill” Allegations

• Assault On Federal Officer Charges

• Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

• Grand Jury Investigations

• Federal Sentencing Strategies

• Asset Forfeiture and Seizure

• BOP Legal Assistance

• Pardons and Commutations

Regardless of what your federal charges are, most criminal cases in federal court proceed the same way, governed by the same federal rules of criminal procedure, federal rules of evidence, and post-conviction regulations. And perhaps most importantly, any potential sentence for a federal conviction is calculated using the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which serve as the starting point for most federal judges in sentencing proceedings. That is why it is so important to engage an attorney with significant experience representing people criminally charged in federal court.

A federal criminal prosecution usually begins when a defendant is charged with federal crimes in an indictment or is arrested for a crime by federal law enforcement agents. Some cases also begin at the state or local level before they “go federal,” and the federal government takes over the prosecution by bringing charges in federal court. Under certain circumstances, the federal charges can be brought in addition to the state charges without violating a defendant’s right against double jeopardy.

IIf the government has charged the defendant by indictment, that means the prosecutor presented the case to a grand jury and persuaded the jury that there was probable cause that the defendant committed the alleged crimes. Notably, however, the prosecutor does not have to present both sides of the case, and a prosecutor can withhold exculpatory evidence or information from the grand jury and present only the facts the prosecutor wants to present. 

The filing of the indictment triggers new deadlines, including deadlines to file pretrial motions and jury selection. Except in unusually complex cases, a defendant is entitled to a speedy trial within a certain time frame, though in some cases it is strategically advantageous to waive those speedy trial rights and ask for more time to investigate the case and prepare a defense.

Sometimes, federal agents will arrest someone before an indictment, such as when there is an ongoing crime or escape. In those cases, before or after the arrest, agents must apply for a criminal complaint against the defendant, which requires showing a magistrate that there is probable cause. The defendant then has the right to be brought before a judge to hear the charges and to challenge whether there is sufficient probable cause supporting a criminal complaint. The government has 30 days to file an indictment after arresting a defendant. 

After a defendant is indicted, they must return to court for an arraignment, where they enter a “Not Guilty” plea and invoke their right to the government’s evidence against them. In rare cases, the defendant and the government have worked out a deal before an indictment, and the defendant pleads “Guilty” to an “Information” that the government has filed with the charges.

Yes. Defendants charged in federal court have a right to request a bond under the Bail Reform Act and are entitled to release pending trial unless the Government shows there are no conditions that can assure they appear in court as required (they are a “flight risk”) or ensure the safety of others (they are a “danger to the community”). A defendant is entitled to a bond hearing within days of their initial appearance or arraignment on the indictment.

At a detention hearing, a federal magistrate judge hears evidence from the government and defense regarding whether the defendant poses a flight risk or danger to the community. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142, the judge must consider several factors: the nature and seriousness of the charges, the strength of the government’s evidence, the defendant’s criminal record (or lack of one), any history of violence or substance abuse, and the defendant’s ties to the community, employment history, and mental and physical condition. 

For some federal offenses involving drug trafficking, firearms, or child exploitation cases, or where a defendant has certain kinds of prior convictions, there is a “rebuttable presumption” that the defendant should be denied bond and detained pending trial. That means the defendant must produce sufficient evidence of their lack of flight risk or danger to “rebut” the presumption and warrant a bond.

The evidence presented at a detention hearing can vary. The government often relies on reports, affidavits, or “proffers” summarizing the case. They’re not required to call live witnesses, and often don’t. But the defense can and should use the opportunity to present real evidence—through documents, witnesses, letters of support, or even proposed third-party custodians. We often submit proof of a client’s stable housing, long-term employment, strong family connections, and sometimes offer release plans involving GPS monitoring, travel restrictions, or substance abuse treatment. The goal is to show the judge that there is a reasonable combination of conditions that can keep the community safe and ensure that the defendant will show up to court when required.

While some attorneys will “waive” their client’s right to a detention hearing in some cases, like where they think the defendant is highly unlikely to get a bond, there is no good reason to waive this important right. Even in cases where a defendant is unlikely to get bond due to the evidence against them or their prior criminal history, a bond hearing is a critical opportunity to subpoena witnesses, challenge the government’s case agent, and strengthen the defense while poking holes in the government’s case. 

If bond is granted, it often comes with strict conditions of release. These may include travel restrictions, regular check-ins with pretrial services, drug testing, a secured bond, or release to the custody of another adult. These conditions are enforceable, and violating them can have serious consequences. If a defendant on bond fails a drug test, misses a court date, contacts a witness, or is charged with a new offense while on bond, the government can seek to revoke their release. At a revocation hearing, the judge will reassess whether the defendant can safely remain out or whether he or she should be detained pending trial.

Getting bond in federal court is more than just a procedural issue—it can shape the entire outcome of your case. When you’re out, you can assist in your defense, support your family, keep working, and maintain a sense of control. When you’re detained, the government has more leverage, and your options narrow. That is why it is important to push for a bond right away–and even if bond is initially denied, an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer will always look for new opportunities for the court to reconsider bond.

After arraignment, most federal criminal cases enter a period of pretrial litigation. This phase is crucial. It’s when the defense begins challenging the government’s case in court by filing pretrial motions—which are usually requests that the court dismiss charges, exclude certain evidence from trial, or compel the government to turn over additional evidence or information that is favorable to the defense. These motions can narrow the issues before trial, strengthen the defense’s leverage in plea negotiations, and, in some cases, lead to a complete dismissal of the case.

What is a motion to suppress?

One of the most important motions in federal criminal litigation is a motion to suppress evidence. A motion to suppress requests that the Court prohibit the government from introducing certain evidence at trial because the evidence was unlawfully seized by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches. For example, if agents conducted an unlawful search, failed to obtain a valid warrant, used an invalid wiretap, or coerced a confession, the defense can ask the court to suppress that evidence. Suppression hearings often give the defense a rare opportunity to cross-examine federal agents under oath, well before trial, and expose weaknesses in the government’s case.

What is a motion to dismiss?

Another powerful motion that can be filed before trial is a motion to dismiss the indictment. A motion to dismiss requests that the Court dismiss charges in the indictment or an indictment completely based on a procedural defect or constitutional violation. For example, a defendant can file a motion to dismiss based on an indictment’s failure to properly allege a federal offense, a violation of the statute of limitations or the defendant’s speedy trial rights, or prosecutorial misconduct. While judges rarely dismiss indictments outright, a well-crafted motion to dismiss can put the government on the defensive and lead to narrower charges or better plea terms.

What is a motion to compel?

The defense may also file discovery motions to compel the government to turn over important evidence. Under federal law, the government must disclose any exculpatory or favorable evidence (called Brady material), statements made by the defendant (Rule 16 discovery), and—before trial—witness statements and reports under the Jencks Act. Unfortunately, however, prosecutors don’t always comply voluntarily, and motions to compel can become necessary when the government withholds evidence or delays disclosure. 

What is a motion in limine?

Finally, motions in limine can be filed shortly before trial to limit the introduction of prejudicial or irrelevant evidence. These motions help define the boundaries of what can and cannot be presented to the jury and can prevent unfair surprises at trial.

Not every case will involve every motion—but any good federal defense lawyer will carefully analyze the discovery, the warrant affidavits, the indictment, and the government’s theory of prosecution to determine which motions can be filed. Some motions aim to win the case. Others aim to shape it. But all of them serve one goal: giving the defense the best possible position before the trial begins.

The best way to get the best outcome in a federal criminal case is to prepare your defense as if you are going to trial, even though few cases statistically go to trial. In some cases, such as where the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming, minimizing the damage to the defendant’s life and family involves negotiating a plea agreement with the government. 

A plea deal can take many forms, from a simple agreement to plead guilty to a reduced charge, to a more complex arrangement where the government agrees to recommend a lighter sentence or drop certain sentencing enhancements. These negotiations often hinge on the strength of the government’s case, the likely sentencing range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and any leverage the defense can create through pretrial motions, mitigation, or trial preparation. 

Once an agreement is reached, the defendant appears in court for a change of plea hearing, where the judge ensures the plea is knowing and voluntary, that there is a factual basis for the plea, and that the defendant understands the rights being waived, including the right to a trial. The court will also typically set a date for sentencing and order the probation office to begin the presentence investigation. 

In some cases, a guilty plea can result in a defendant going into custody. Some offenses, such as serious drug trafficking, violent, or sex offenses, require detention upon a finding of guilt. An experienced criminal defense attorney can convince the judge to make an exception to the general rule, however, often by showing a “compelling” reason for the defendant to remain on bond pending sentencing.

While most federal criminal cases are statistically likely to be resolved through plea agreements, some cases can only be resolved through a trial. A federal trial is a high-stakes, tightly controlled process governed by strict procedural and evidentiary rules. 

The first step in any trial is jury selection, also called voir dire. This is when the court and the attorneys question potential jurors to uncover bias or conflicts of interest that may prevent them from being objective and fair. In many federal courts, the judge controls most of the questioning. Even so, a skilled defense lawyer can voir dire to identify problematic jurors and make strategic strikes. In rare cases, the defendant may opt for a bench trial, where the judge decides the case instead of a jury.

Once the jury is seated, the government presents its opening statement—a narrative of what it intends to prove. The defense may also give an opening. The government then calls witnesses to testify under oath. These can include federal agents, forensic experts, cooperating witnesses (like co-defendants or informants), and other witnesses. All witnesses for the government are subject to cross-examination. When the government rests, the defense has the opportunity to present evidence  but is not required to. A defendant may choose to testify but cannot be forced to, and the jury cannot hold it against them if they decide not to testify.

Before the case goes to the jury, both sides argue over the jury instructions, which are the specific legal standards the judge tells the jury to apply. Once finalized, the judge charges the jury, and the lawyers present closing arguments, summarizing the evidence and urging the jury to reach a verdict.

Federal juries must reach a unanimous verdict. If the jury unanimously votes to convict, the case moves to sentencing. If they acquit, the case ends. If they cannot reach agreement, the court may declare a mistrial, and the government must decide whether to retry the case.

When a defendant is convicted in federal court—either by plea or after a trial—the next major phase of the case is sentencing. Unlike state court, where sentencing often happens when the defendant is found guilty, federal sentencing involves a much more detailed and structured process. Our firm has extensive experience helping individuals in federal court obtain the lowest sentences possible, including time served sentences, probation, and significant downward variances from the Guidelines.

What is the PSR or PSIR?

Federal sentencing proceedings start with the U.S. Probation Office drafting a Presentence Investigation Report (usually referred to as the PSR or PSIR), a document summarizing that can heavily influence the defendant’s sentence. 

The PSR is prepared by a federal probation officer assigned by the court. That officer interviews the defendant, reviews the offense conduct, criminal history, personal background, and family circumstances, and calculates an advisory sentencing range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The probation officer will also gather information from the prosecutor and the case agent, and sometimes simply copy-paste the government’s version of events. In some districts, victims may be consulted as well. 

When the first draft of the PSR is disclosed, the government and the defense have the opportunity to object to certain provisions of the PSR, including its factual assertions and calculation of the sentencing guidelines. While many defense attorneys wait to see the first draft of the PSR before objecting to provisions they disagree with, we reach out to the probation officer before the first draft is released and present evidence and information that supports our narrative and arguments.

What happens at a sentencing hearing in federal court? 

Defendants convicted of a federal crime are sentenced at a hearing that is almost like a “mini trial.” In a federal sentencing hearing,  the judge hears evidence and arguments from the parties before ruling on any objections to the PSR. The judge then determines whether to sentence the defendant within their guidelines range or below or above it. The defense may present letters of support from family and community members, mental health evaluations, records of treatment or military service, evidence of rehabilitation, or testimony from character witnesses. Some clients may make a statement to the court, expressing remorse or explaining their circumstances. In certain cases, expert reports on trauma, addiction, or mental illness can provide powerful context that softens the court’s view of the offense.

Prosecutors may advocate for a guideline or above-guideline sentence, but a prepared and strategic defense can often persuade the judge to depart or vary downward. Sentencing memoranda—legal briefs filed by each side—give the court a roadmap of arguments. In some cases, we also request a downward departure based on specific guideline provisions, such as substantial assistance to the government (§5K1.1) or mitigating personal circumstances.

Once the sentence is imposed, the judge can allow the defendant to remain on bond until they are assigned a BOP facility. The judge can also make certain recommendations that the defendant be assigned a particular facility or be enrolled in a rehabilitation program, such as the BOP’s popular Drug Abuse program that reduces an inmate’s sentence by a year.

A conviction and sentence in federal court doesn’t always mean the end of the road. Depending on the circumstances, several post-conviction options may be available to challenge a defendant’s conviction or reduce their sentence. 

A direct appeal is a request that a federal court of appeals review the district court’s rulings for legal errors in regards to the defendant’s conviction and sentence. These appeals are typically based on issues raised during trial or sentencing such as improper jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, misapplication of the sentencing guidelines, or constitutional violations. If the appeal is successful, the case may be reversed or sent back for a new trial or resentencing. 

A motion to vacate a conviction or sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is a form of post-conviction relief that allows a defendant to challenge their conviction or sentence on constitutional grounds—most often for ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or jurisdictional errors. Unlike a direct appeal, a § 2255 motion is filed in the original trial court and can include factual developments outside the trial and sentencing record. There are strict deadlines for filing, and certain claims may be barred if not raised earlier, so timing and strategy are critical. 

Finally, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), some defendants may be eligible to request a sentence reduction either through the First Step Act, retroactive guideline amendments, or so-called “compassionate release” based on extraordinary and compelling circumstances such as severe illness, age, or significant changes in sentencing law. 

Courts have broad discretion under § 3582, but the defense must present strong evidence that continued incarceration no longer serves the goals of sentencing. While post-conviction relief is never guaranteed, a skilled federal defense lawyer can assess which options are viable and fight for a second chance when the law—and justice—allow it.

CONTACT OUR FIRM IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE IS FACING FEDERAL CRIMINAL CHARGES. Our attorneys are experienced in federal court and dedicated to fighting for you. The call is free and confidential.