White Collar Criminal Defense – State Versus Federal Prosecutions

October 31, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

jeremy@texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

“White collar” crime typically refers to allegations about business related wrongdoings – frequently with accounting or other executive level indiscretions.

Both state and federal authorities police white collar cases.

Examples of white collar charges can be:

What is the Difference Between State and Federal Prosecution for White Collar Cases?

Sometimes it’s as simple as jurisdiction.  The federal government has jurisdiction over Medicare fraud and federal income tax evasion.  Other times, the criminal enforcement over-laps and either could prosecute if they wanted though they generally coordinate so as to not waste resources.

Why Does the Federal Government Prosecute Some Cases and Not Others?

The federal government tends to focus more on cases of higher financial value.  They also frequently prosecute cases where there are more potential guilty parties and co-conspirators.  You might see a state level prosecution with 3, 4 or 5 people involved in a white-collar conspiracy.  It’s not uncommon, though, to see the US Attorneys prosecution a crime ring with 20 suspects or more.

Differences in Investigation Resources and Capacity

The federal government is a very well oiled machine in terms of investigation and case work-up on pretty much every level.  The US attorney typically works hand-in-hand with agencies such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, homeland security and any other federal agency you can think of such as the SEC and IRS.

State level investigations can be excellent as well – but there is more of a hit and miss chance.  The state of Texas does have a State Securities prosecution team, for example, as well as the Texas Rangers.  At the same time, a smaller police agency officer or detective with far less training may try to put together a white collar case and not really have the best idea of what they’re doing.  Federal investigators can and often do help out state agencies – but state agencies might not always ask even when they should.

Differences in Trial

It’s far more likely in federal court – if you opt to have a trial – to be on trial with whatever co-defendants have not already plead guilty.  This could mean being on trial at the same time with the same jury as everyone else charged in the same conspiracy.

You can be put on trial with someone else in State Court – but it is less frequent and the rules make it easier for you to split the cases apart.

The rules of trial from State and Federal Court aren’t perfectly and completely aligned, but they are very similar.  The differences are a completely different topic which could probably be the subject of an entire law school class.  The differences, though, are pretty technical and can be somewhat minute.

Differences in White Collar Punishment: State vs. Federal

State level punishment can differ drastically from federal punishment.  Federal punishment tends to be dictated by the federal sentencing guidelines and will ultimately be decided by a judge.  Texas state courts give a defendant the option of having a judge or jury impose sentencing – and the sentencing is encompasses a far broader range of possible jail – and in many instances probation too.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is board certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He has been designated as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

 


How COVID Broke the Courts Blog 3 -(Negotiation)

August 19, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

jeremy@texasdefensefirm.com

COVID has altered the way we negotiate cases.

Communication isn’t the same.  At times, the new modes of connection are difficult to overcome.  Rapport, trust, sincerity and the degree of how emphatic a particular plea is just harder to convey if it’s anything other than in-person.

Email pic

Prosecutors are funny creatures.  I believe they are driven by decency, a quest for justice and a sense of duty.  I know because I was one and I really enjoyed it and found it fulfilling.

But understanding them and what makes them tick is far more complicated.  Many are younger and being a lawyer for the State is their first job in our profession.  Some of the more experienced ones have still never ventured outside the DA’s office.  Their world is like none-other.  I found it to be eerily similar to an echo chamber at times filled with adulation of citizens and the all-to-often somewhat self-assured notion that we had a monopoly on the truth.  The result is prosecutors often take the guilt of the accused (or proving the guilt of the accused) for granted.

I include this to say their view of cases — and often their firmness in sticking to their point — is often far different than mine.  When I’m negotiating with them for a better plea offer convincing them to simply walk-away and dismiss a case – it takes persuasion.

Knowing what motivates prosecutors is absolutely crucial in criminal defense.  And whether I’m trying to convince a prosecutor a certain case requires cooperation or collaboration — or I’m simply trying to convince them their poker hand is an offsuit 2-7 split — it is far more difficult to do it with short, choppy emails or text messages than it is just to sit and visit with them for a few minutes.

What tends to happen with phone calls or emails is the prosecutor tends to hear the message — perhaps miss some of the intonations I’m trying to convey — and then retreat back into their echo chamber to consider it further.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise it’s a far more difficult sale.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is a Texas Super Lawyer as designated by Thomson Reuters.


How COVID Broke The Criminal Courts – Blog 2 (Access to Courts)

August 11, 2020

 By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

jeremy@texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

One of the things I miss most with the pandemic is not seeing everyone at the Courthouse every day.

Being a defense lawyer is like being an athlete who shows up to the same clubhouse 3 or 4 times every week.  Over the years you have the opportunity to develop social, collegial, and professional relationships with everyone in the building.  You get to know other defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges, court coordinators, bailiffs and even the security guards at the front door.

These relationships are more than just fun.  They are the “WD-40” of courthouse efficiency.  It goes without saying being face to face allows everyone in the building to do their jobs more efficiently.  Not only that, being physically in the courthouse allows me to solve 10 problems a morning instead of just 2 if I’m trying only to work the phone.

Put in its simplest terms — I have a much more challenging time being an active influence for my client when I’m not “in the room where it happens.”

The limited access to prosecutors and court personnel presents two main problems.

Courthouse pictureFirst, is the limited ability to communicate.  In grade school we learn about verbal and non-verbal communication.  The stuff happens to be true.  Advocating for a client in person where the prosecutor or Judge can see and sense the depth and passion of an argument — even an informal one — is far better in person.  Texting, phoning, and even zoom simply isn’t as effective.

The second is simple access to prosecutors and court personnel.  During normal times it is much easier for me to be able to — for example — grab a prosecutor and visit with a Judge quickly about troubleshooting a problem either on the bench or in chambers.  Hurdles to those conversations are far more easy to overcome.  What used to take minutes can now take weeks.

Life will get back to normal.  My hope is that when it does, the ability to communicate with everyone at the courthouse does too.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is currently designated as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.


10 Principles of Defending People (#8 Be Optimistic & #7 Inoculation)

June 1, 2018

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Today I’ve got two principles to share and they can be summed up the cliche, “Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst.”

I’m summing up what I feel are the 10 most important principles a criminal defense lawyer should follow in their practice in this series.  You can read about my previous posts so far on the topic here:

#8 Be Optimistic

You won’t find much doom and gloom on my blog.  I’m sure there’s plenty of anger, grand-standing and self-ritcheosness… but hopefully not much fear-mongering.

People often shake as they’re walking into my office.  A big part of it is because they’ve been on the internet or gotten legal advice from their best friend growing up.  They think I’m going to confirm their fears about having body and appendages severed by the prosecution.

I have yet to come across a case in the zillions I’ve evaluated where there isn’t some hope, some ray of sunshine, or something to be optimistic about.  Granted, these things are relative and  if there weren’t legitimate reasons for concern — no one would come and see me at all.

But people crave optimism from professionals they deal with.  There is nothing wrong with being optimistic and letting folks know where the sunlight is.

#7  Inoculate People For Bad News

Again, today’s topic is a ying and yang concept.  While there is nothing wrong with being optimistic — people also don’t come to a lawyer to be lied to.

Bad news is unfortunately part of the job.  It’s important to discuss unpleasant possibilities for many reasons.  What is also important is putting them into context and letting someone know how realistic certain outcomes may or may-not be.

I find it is important to discuss possible bad news before it happens.  This way the lawyer and client can come up with a plan for avoiding the possible bad result and time to come up with another plan should the bad result come to fruition.  This gives the client and/or their family a sense of some control and allows time for them to wrap their mind around things.

I call the concept inoculation.  It is like eating vegetables.  It’s no fun to eat veggies at the table but it’s very healthy in the long run.  Discussing possible bad outcomes in a constructive way yields long term dividends.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas.


Top 5 Most Common Police Attitudes – #1

May 15, 2018

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

This week I’m counting down some of the top police attitudes I see as a criminal defense lawyer in cases I handle.  Again, these are in no particular order of frequency or importance.

One theme I’ve discussed several times in this series of blogs is how the pressures of law enforcement can pull, push, stretch and bend officers in every different direction.  Police see the ugly underbelly of humanity and it shapes how they view the world.

Today’s attitude is no different.

#1 — Scumbag Mode

Police are at their most disappointing when they are in what I call “scumbag mode.”  It is self explanatory.  They think they’re dealing with a scumbag and they treat the person as such.

What I don’t always see with an officer in scumbag mode is an officer who is downright aggressive.  Instead, many are passive aggressive allowing the suspect to think they are in control.  What the suspect doesn’t know is they are already trapped in a spider’s web.

But we can tell they are in scumbag mode because of how they act or what they say.  Evidence of innocence gets crumpled up and pitched right into the trash can.  They call tow trucks once they go back to their squad cars.  They game plan with other officers about the arrest… then they go right back out to the defendant and pretend he or she can talk their way out of trouble.

Not happening.

The hardest things to get juries to understand about when an officer goes into this mode are three things — first is the degree of often passive-aggressive manipulation; second is their bias causes them to distort evidence against the accused; and finally — jurors don’t want to believe police are manipulative or that they’re not objective.

Now, in fairness… police think this way probably as a survival mechanism.  They see the underbelly of humanity and much of the time — their instinct and hunches are right about dealing with a scumbag more often than they are wrong.

What happens when the police go into “scumbag” mode and they’re not dealing with a scumbag?  They arrest people doing nothing wrong in Starbucks.  What is more likely than a national scandal is police hassling a young person, a non-conformist, or as all too often is the case, a minority for much longer than they’d deal with a soccer-mom from the suburbs.

Next time you see a story about police hassling someone for far too long remember they’re doing it because of their job pressures and because they’ve been triggered to go into their “scumbag” mode.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas.