federal defense lawyer

federal defense lawyer questions and answers

Q: who is the best federal criminal defense lawyer in honolulu?


A: Try calling the state bar and get a list of lawyers who are criminal defense lawyer. Ask the clerk, if she has a list of win win cases.

Q: Is the lawyer who subpoenaed me to testify in out of state trial responsible for my travel costs?
I rec'd subpoena to testify in an out of state (NC) trial (Im in MD) about a week ago by an investigator who is working on behalf of the public defense lawyer in a federal case. While answering his questions he informed me that maybe I wouldnt need to testify, but he still gave me the subpoena. He said him and/or the lawyer would follow up with me regarding whether they need me, but I haven't heard back (its been about 3 days) and the trial starts in about 2 weeks. I guess he is busy, because he said he has to interview like 100 people.. anyway, during my interview he also hinted that a plea was possible.. so in that case I wouldnt need to go. My main question though: if I do have to go, is the lawyer that subpoenaed me responsible for reimbursing me on travel, lodging, meals, lost time at work, etc... what is required of the lawyer for this out of state subpoena.. i.e. - do they have to notify me of anything, cover my travel costs, etc.. Legal help/knowledge is appreciated. Thanks.

A: It depends on the nature of the case, but in many circumstances for Federal trials, you are paid a fixed fee set forth in law. To the best of my knowledge, you get $40 per day and $0.55 per mile traveled. That's not going to cover all expenses, but least it's something. Due to the extreme distance, it may be possible to request additional expenses be paid on the grounds of "undue hardship," but you will need to contact the lawyer or the court itself to inquire about that.

Q: Can A Federal Judge Set a Trial, If the dicovery has not been submitted to the defense?
Can a federal judge set a trial date demand that date be the day of the trial and the discovery has not been given or reviewed by the defense? I was given a court date yesterday of Jan. 9th '07 and my lawyer has still not recieved all the discovery. Don't you have the right to see 'Full Discovery" and time to dicuss and make a defense to the charges? I feel as though even my lawyer is pushing me to accept a Plea Bargain. I feel as I am be scared In to accepting resposibilty of something I did not do so I won't get into as much trouble. The evidence is weak and the person who was caught is involving me to help reduce his sentence. ALthough my court appointed never listens to me and tells me all the horror stories. I am 46 year old professional male with one Felony Possesion Charge, I am confused what to do. I know I am innocent of the charges however feel as the federal government will do whatever to find me guilty. The only charge I have ever had stemmed from this person bust.

A: You do have a right to have the US Attorney turn over to your attorney all of the evidence upon which they will base their case. They also have an affirmative duty to disclose any exculpatory evidence in their possession. Your attorney should, if he/she hasn't already, file a motion to compel discovery. You also need to listen to your attorney. Ultimately, you are responsible for your defense, however. 1) If you are unable to talk to your attorney, call him/her and set an appointment. Have a list of questions to ask him/her. If you don't understand the answer, ask him/her to explain the answer until you do understand. 2) If your attorney refuses to communicate with you, you would need to contact the court and advise them of the problem and that you are putting the court on notice that there is a communication breakdown/potential ineffective representation. The courts are often interested in resolving these matters because if you are convicted, they don't want to have a claim of ineffective counsel on appeal. 3) As was suggested, you can also hire private counsel to represent you. This will be epxensive, but if you are a 46 year old professional male, I don't understand why you can't afford one. At the very least, you should spend a few hundred dollars on a consultation with a private attorney to see what they have to say. For a referral to a private attorney, contact your local or state bar association.

Q: What do you think about foreign born criminals sneaking back into the US?
The goal of the U.S. government's expanding program to rid the country of foreign-born criminals is clear: Find illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes and deport them so they no longer pose a threat to the public. The government has successfully deported hundreds of thousands of foreign-born criminals in recent years. But a significant number have come back again, illegally, to the United States, often to commit more crimes, according to government data and interviews with law-enforcement authorities, federal prosecutors and criminal-defense lawyers. There are no broad government statistics on how many deported criminals re-enter the United States illegally, but arrests by Border Patrol agents in the Tucson region alone suggest the number is high. In fiscal year 2008, 16 percent of the 317,696 immigrants arrested by agents in Tucson, one of nine sectors on the U.S.-Mexican border, were charged with felony counts of re-entering illegally, either because they had prior felony convictions in the U.S. or previously had been formally deported. Crossing the border illegally is typically a misdemeanor.The illegal re-entry of people who have been deported, especially those with criminal histories, represents one of the most vexing and persistent problems in the government's stepped-up effort to battle illegal immigration. The government doesn't have the resources to prosecute all of them, and in the past most were simply just deported again. http://www.app.com/article/20090816/NEWS/90816008/1001/rss

A: work farm for 3 years for the first offense work farm for 5 years for second offense work farm for 10 years third offense work farm cemetery for forth offense

Q: What do you think of this Federal grand jury investigating S.F.'s sanctuary-city policies ?
(10-03) 17:58 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal grand jury is investigating whether San Francisco's policy of offering sanctuary to undocumented immigrants violates U.S. laws against harboring people who are in the country illegally, city officials say. City Attorney Dennis Herrera said his office has hired a criminal defense lawyer to represent employees who might be questioned or asked for documents. Both he and Mayor Gavin Newsom said they would cooperate with the investigation. San Francisco, like about 80 other U.S. cities and five states, has a law prohibiting the use of its funds to help enforce federal immigration law or question individuals about their immigration status. The San Francisco ordinance, originally prompted by arrivals of refugees from Central American wars of the 1980s, specifies that police can report jailed felons to federal immigration authorities.The Chronicle reported earlier this year that San Francisco juvenile justice authorities, interpreting the sanctuary policy, had flown some illegal immigrant youths to their home countries after juvenile court judges found they had committed felonies. Other youths were sent to unlocked group homes in this country and escaped. The policy of not referring juvenile offenders to federal immigration authorities had been in place for at least a decade. Newsom announced in July, after the first Chronicle articles appeared, that he had halted the flights in May and told city officials to start turning over youthful felons as well as adults to immigration officers for deportation. Herrera's office was notified of the investigation several weeks ago when the grand jury issued a subpoena for documents. It's not clear whether prosecutors are seeking evidence of possible criminal violations by city officials. Herrera issued a prepared statement but did not answer questions about the investigation, and U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello - who has been a vocal critic of the city's policy - had no comment, said spokesman Joshua Eaton. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/03/BA1T13B7IJ.DTL&tsp=1

A: If there was any justice in America Gavin Newsom would be rotting in federal prison doing life. But we live in billion bankster bailout America. In that America only the average America will get punished for bad decisions.

Q: Does the Obama CIRCUS now EXTEND to the FEDERAL COURT with his DOJ NEW CIRCUS ACT of PERFORMERS?
Attorney General Eric Holder announced Tuesday he’s replacing the head of the office that investigates misconduct by Justice Department attorneys, just a day after Sullivan publicly complained about the unit’s slow pace. But other federal judges, too, are complaining about the work done by Justice Department prosecutors. • Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly recently removed a Justice Department lawyer from a Guantanamo detainee case for flouting several deadlines, then lambasted his supervisor for submitting a “shockingly revisionist” sequence of events to the court. • In Miami last month, federal Judge Alan Gold complained of "flagrant violations" by prosecutors who did not disclose the existence of secret recordings of a defense lawyer for a doctor charged with prescription fraud. Another federal judge in Washington, John Bates, last year cited a failure to turn over evidence as he ordered a new trial for a man convicted of illegal business dealings with Iran. Bates said he had “grave concerns” about the government’s actions, which “severely prejudiced” the defendant’s fair trial rights. • And in a separate Gitmo case, Sullivan also lashed out at the government, vowing that “someone’s going to pay a price” for withholding evidence. What’s remarkable about several of those cases is that judges – usually loath to interfere in the mechanics of the prosecution or the defense — took the dramatic step of removing Justice Department lawyers, or simply throwing out verdicts in cases that began during the prior administration. This repeated criticism delivered to DOJ attorneys suggests they are facing a credibility gap, particularly before judges in the Capital—and perhaps elsewhere in the country as well—that could have profound effects in a variety of other cases. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21038.html

A: Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. -James Madison, The Federalist (no. 51) Clouds and darkness surround us, yet Heaven is just, and the day of triumph will surely come, when justice and truth will be vindicated. Our wrongs will be made right, and we will once more, taste the blessings of freedom. -Mary Ann Todd Lincoln To bad these words do not ring true today There is no virtue so truly great and godlike as Justice. Most of the other virtues are the virtues of created Beings, or accommodated to our nature as we are men. Justice is that which is practised by God himself, and to be practised in its perfection by none but him. Omniscience and Omnipotence are requisite for the full exertion of it. The one, to discover every degree of uprightness or iniquity in thoughts, words and actions. The other, to measure out and impart suitable rewards and punishments. As to be perfectly just is an attribute in the divine nature, to be so to the utmost of our abilities is the glory of a man. Such an one who has the publick administration in his hands, acts like the representative of his Maker, in recompencing the virtuous, and punishing the offender. -Joseph Addison, Guardian, No. 99, July 4, 1713

Q: Why do so many Americans try to bring guns through airport security?
I'm not a criminal defense lawyer, but my friend from law school does crimdef in the Dallas, TX area, and he makes VERY GOOD money defending people who get caught trying to bring firearms through those TSA checkpoints at commercial airports. Not even knives - his whole business is firearms and checkpoints. And he has a lot of work! I don't get this. How the heck could you possibly be dumb enough to try to bring a firearm through a TSA checkpoint? It's not a perfect system, but for a regular metallic firearm with ammunition loaded, you will LIKELY get busted. Those things look HUGE on the scanner. So, why take that bad bet? The thing is, TSA and airports are FEDERAL facilities. That means, when they arrest you, you will be charged with a FEDERAL (not a state) law violation, and you'll have to get a lawyer who does federal courts defense (like my buddy - he charges upwards of $15,000 per case). Why are there so many dumb people in America? I did some research, and there are only a tiny handful of guys who do this same line of work in Canada (apparently Canadians rarely try to bring firearms through airport security), and none in the UK. Every major city in the US has at least a few guys doing TSA defense. Are Americans just dumber in this regard, or what? Why the heck would you waltz right through a checkpoint with your firearm when your chances of getting through are so low? By the way, some guy was arrested for murder at LAX yesterday. His mistake? Tried to bring a handgun through the TSA checkpoint...

A: Absolute stupidity...

Q: Should I file the same lawsuit in federal court also?
The defendants lawyers are trying to say that the defendants weren't properly served. The sheriff served them. Anyhow, if the lawyers are using this as one of the affirmative defenses, to protect the case before a ruling is made, should I file this case in federal court as well, because there are 2 federal questions present, and the jurisdictional amount present.

A: You need a lawyer.

Q: Why doesn't Yahoo show news about the illegality of the President's warrantless wiretapping?
I amr referring to the news about the Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor decision, the federal judge in Michigan, and the plaintiffs including the ACLU, Greenpeace, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, to declare unconstitutional the warrantless wiretapping by the NSA and other secret government agencies. This news became public three or four days ago.

A: Its already on appeal. I hope they keep them.

Q: What do you think Ex-border agents appeal convictions ?
Two former U.S. Border Patrol agents sentenced to lengthy prison terms for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect have asked a federal appeals court to overturn their convictions, saying they were charged with a nonexistent crime and convicted after the jury was given improper instructions by the trial judge. Houston defense lawyer J. Mark Brewer said two counts of a grand jury indictment against former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean charged them under a federal statute with the discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, but the statute does not define a crime and contains only a sentencing factor to be addressed after conviction. Mr. Brewer said in a 20-page motion that the "improperly-crafted indictment" misfocused the agents, counsel and jury on a nonexistent crime of unlawful discharge of a firearm, because the agents were authorized to possess, carry and use a firearm in the normal course of their job. He said that in order to charge a crime under the government's 10-year mandatory sentence statute, an indictment "must allege that a defendant either has used or carried a firearm ... during and in relation to any crime of violence or has possessed a firearm in furtherance of such a crime." He said the prosecution "misstated" the crime defined by federal statute. Mr. Brewer said the district court "erroneously told the jury the federal statute made it a crime for anyone to discharge a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence." A ruling in the case is expected next month."This is an outrageous case of prosecutorial abuse," said Paul Kamenar, senior executive counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, a watchdog group among eight organizations and persons who have filed briefs in support of the agents. "Instead of prosecuting the drug smuggler, the Justice Department filed a dozen felony charges against two agents trying to do their job." The pending appeal is being heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and seeks to overturn 11- and 12-year prison terms Ramos and Compean received, respectively, after they shot Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks when he abandoned a van containing 743 pounds of marijuana and fled back into Mexico. http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070924/NATION/109240047/1002

A: They should be freed. Aldrete-Davila is the one who should be behind bars. Instead he was given immunity and free medical treatment at US taxpayer expense. "He showed his gratitude by breaking his immunity agreement in October 2005, when officers say he attempted to smuggle 1,000 pounds of marijuana into America. The prosecution further extended its immunity to this felony and sealed the indictment from jurors. Aldrete-Davila repaid this new shower of grace by suing the federal government for $5 million, alleging the shooting violated his civil rights. However, he agreed to help in their criminal prosecution, as well, and the feds are apparently happy to collaborate with the pusher as long as he helped put effective lawmen behind bars." Ramos and Compean were doing their jobs. The ones who prosecuted them failed to do theirs properly.

Q: Should the choice to become a vegan be a personal choice or parental choice?
Vegan parents in Georgia were sentenced Wednesday to life in prison after their 6-week-old son died of malnutrition. The baby, Crown Shakur, weighed only 3.5 pounds. He'd been fed mostly soy milk and apple juice. Vegans typically do not consume animal products. Defense lawyers say the first-time parents did the best they could for their son while adhering to the strict lifestyle of vegans. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby -- who was born in a bathtub at their home -- was in danger until minutes before he died in April of 2004.

A: There's a difference between being a vegan and being stupid. Whatever happened to breastmilk? Or do we consider ourselves animals? And WTF were parents doing giving a 6-week old child apple juice? They were obviously just space cadets anyway - bad parents in general, it had nothing to do with their dietary choice - they just forgot to use their brains. They SHOULD go to jail - stupid people who are clueless about starving a freaking babyneed to be off the streets so they don't harm themselves or others. How did they ever manage to function on a daily basis? They must have needed help getting dressed in the morning - I bet someone was there to wipe their a$$e$ too - HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW YOUR BABY IS STARVING?? is the anorexic look really that in-style now that they thought less than 4 pounds was normal??

Q: Would you do this to your newborn baby?
Vegan parents in Georgia were sentenced Wednesday to life in prison after their 6-week-old son died of malnutrition. The baby, Crown Shakur, weighed only 3.5 pounds. He'd been fed mostly soy milk and apple juice. Vegans typically do not consume animal products. Defense lawyers say the first-time parents did the best they could for their son while adhering to the strict lifestyle of vegans. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby -- who was born in a bathtub at their home -- was in danger until minutes before he died in April of 2004

A: I hope they throw them in jail so far back they have to feed them beans with a peashooter. There is no excuse for that.

Q: How do you feel about federal employees making on average $30,000 more than private sector jobs since...?
the recession began? http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data. Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted. Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector. The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available. When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000. The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules. "There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee. Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs. USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management's database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM's data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel. Is this an example of government intervention into the economy championing the poor?

A: They certainly not not earn nor deserve it, they are to be public or civil servants, and the servant should make less than their masters!!

Q: Complaining about what wrong in America has a price, are you willing to pay it?
Getting kinda tried of those that sit back in the ivory tower of Ignorance and say "do something", "stop complaining", stop "whining". I do many things but not going to tell you all about the things i do in a open forum. I also would not go quail hunting with Dick Cheney. Who is Lynne Stewart? Radical human rights attorney Lynne Stewart has been falsely accused of helping terrorists. Now convicted, she faces 30 years in prison. On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, she was arrested and agents searched her Manhattan office for documents. She was arraigned before Manhattan federal Judge John Koeltl. This is an obvious attempt by the U.S. government to silence dissent, curtail vigorous defense lawyers, and install fear in those who would fight against the U.S. government's racism, seek to help Arabs and Muslims being prosecuted for free speech and defend the rights of all oppressed people. Lynne Stewart may very well be guilty. That's not the point. The point is many pay a price for "speaking" out and real "actions" now have a High Price. Researchers directed to 'make the president look good' Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him [NY Times - 01-29-06] The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. In a true search for the truth you will find "education". The number of Federal cases with "sealed" records has doubled since Bu$h was appointed to office. Pete V, what makes you think you get to decide? "This isn't really the place for this kind of rant." Marygirl, wonderful well said, I tip my hat to you....:)First they came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionist and i did not speak up I was not a Trade Unionist. The they came for the Catholics and I did not speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak up. Pastor Martin Niemoeller

A: Complaining - Whining - Freedom of Speech - Defending Rights? See, to me, it's all the same. I would put these four topics and place them all into one catagory: ACTION When we complain... We Whine. When we whine... We scream justification due to our personal Freedom of Speech; Sloppily kicking aside the Bill of Rights as we... Claim we are Defending our Rights. What we are forsaking is our Meaning and the Purpose for our behavior. There will forever be an available arguement to argue, but who is smart enough to establish a solution and take ACTION in lieu of Complaining - Whining - Freedom of Speech - Defending Rights? *** One person can make difference ***

Q: Do you agree with U visa's for illegal aliens who claim domestic violence?
Is this not another way for illegals to commit fraud and cry domestic violence to just become legal? The mother put her in this situation and would have had to sign for her to get married. Shouldn't the mother be prosecuted? Why should illegal aliens who are here breaking laws, who put themselves in these positions be allowed a special visa? xXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX And for those who will ask, I am totally against domestic violence, I donate and have many friends who work at a womans shelter. I say remove them from the situation and send them back to their countries. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX She was 14 when her mother smuggled her into Los Angeles. She met her future husband, a legal resident, two years later. Theo Rigby for The New York Times A Guatemalan immigrant now has legal United States residency after helping the authorities prosecute her husband for abuse. She asked that her identity be withheld for fear of retaliation. He had all the cards, and played them cruelly, as she recalls. He would not let her go to school or work, dragged his feet on supporting her citizenship request, and called her fat and ugly after she became pregnant. She endured it all — until she caught him romancing a 13-year-old girl from their church choir. When she complained, he beat her bloody, tried to rape her, and fled, with the girl, to Arizona, she said in an affidavit that is now part of federal immigration records. Today, he is in prison, and she is caring for her children in San Francisco, with a driver’s license and a legal job baby-sitting. Her legal status came about through what is known as a U visa — a humanitarian “island of niceness,” as one advocate called it, in a sea of restrictive United States immigration laws. Victims of domestic violence are often deeply reluctant to press charges, fearing retaliation or simply hoping their abusers will change. The risk of deportation only escalates the aversion to go to the police. That is a main reason that Congress passed legislation in 2000, creating the U visa. It allows immigrants who have endured substantial mental or physical abuse and who cooperate with law enforcement officials to work legally and stay in the United States for up to four years while applying for permanent residence. After nearly a decade of delays, federal officials began allowing the visas en masse only early last year, after sustained efforts from immigrant rights groups, particularly several based in Oakland and San Francisco. The pace of approvals has since stepped up, as has the controversy, with both defense lawyers and groups opposed to immigration contending that the process invites scams. For millions of immigrants and their supporters, however, the program is truly an island of niceness, as Catherine Ward-Seitz, the regional immigration coordinator for Bay Area Legal Aid in San Francisco, put it. With a soured economy encouraging hostility at worst and apathy at best toward illegal immigrants, the U visas are a bittersweet consolation prize. In a compassionate twist on the idea that felons should be imprisoned, victims who can show that guns (or knives or fists) were used against them can be released from the fear of deportation. While victims of several specified crimes are eligible, at least three-fourths of the applicants for U visas to date, like the Guatemalan baby sitter, who asked that her name not be used for fear of retaliation from her spouse, say they have suffered domestic violence, said Chris Rhatigan, a spokeswoman for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration lawyers said this was largely because of the prevalence of domestic violence in general. Ending impunity in cases of domestic violence makes whole communities safer, proponents say. “These are disclosure-driven crimes, meaning people have to come forth and report them; there’s no gunshot to bring it to our attention,” said Lt. Kevin Wiley, commander of the Oakland Police Department’s special victims unit, which certified 153 U visas last year. “It’s all about building trust,” Lieutenant Wiley said, adding that police certification of the visas was a powerful tool in creating bonds among wary residents who have long been the silent victims of a range of crimes, like the robberies of illegal immigrants known on the streets as “amigo checkings.” What is more, Lieutenant Wiley said, the police often discover that domestic violence offenders have multiple victims. Congress approved an annual limit of 10,000 U visas. Yet the regulations that would put the law in force were not made final by the Department of Homeland Security until September 2007. A few dozen U visas were approved in 2008. Then the pace increased. In the fiscal year ending last September, immigration officials approved 5,825. Another 2,244 No blame is put on the victim for this, but it should not be used as a crutch for the laws they have broken, like I said, remove the abused from the situation and deport them back to their homelands.

A: If the illegals don't abuse it, then their advocates surely will by coaching them. I am going to say this one more time for the record... I have a friend who works 2 jobs. One in the medical field, and the other in a women's shelter. I have heard her say on many occasions how illegals (and yes she in fact knows their legal or illegal status) have charged domestic abuse against their boyfriends or spouses, while also claiming that the U.S. is so racist. So why bother rewarding them?