Federal Criminal Defense — Frequently Asked Questions

Warning signs include a target/subject letter, grand jury subpoena or CID, agents contacting you or colleagues, a search warrant, or unusual third-party document inquiries (banks/employers). Assume scrutiny and avoid statements without counsel. Preserve records; early advocacy can change outcomes.

Contact Ron before speaking to any agent or prosecutor.

No. Politely request their cards and say counsel will follow up. If there’s a warrant, do not interfere; request the warrant and inventory and note items seized. Do not consent to an interview. Write down what happened and call counsel immediately.

Contact Ron for next-step triage.

Criminal subpoena (Rule 17) compels testimony/documents for a criminal case or grand jury. A CID under the FCA compels documents/interrogatories/testimony pre-suit in civil fraud probes. Do not self-collect; we negotiate scope, protect privilege, and manage deadlines.

Contact Ron to control exposure and response.

It signals prosecutors believe there’s substantial evidence against you. It’s also an opportunity. We may meet with the government, submit exculpatory materials, and negotiate self-surrender terms if charges are coming. Do not contact witnesses or move records; get counsel now.

Contact Ron to plan the response.

• Voluntary agent interview: risky; statements are admissible and can be misremembered.
• Grand jury testimony: under oath; lawyer waits outside; perjury risk.
• Proffer (“Queen-for-a-Day”): limited protections via letter; usable for leads/impeachment.

We choose (or decline) based on risk, leverage, and objectives—never without preparation and a written agreement.

Contact Ron before agreeing to any meeting.

No. Only certain participants are allowed. You can step out to consult counsel between questions. We often advise witnesses not to testify unless there’s a compelling strategic reason.

Prepare with Ron before any appearance.

• Complaint: sworn affidavit for early arrest; must proceed to indictment/information quickly.
• Information: prosecutor files charges without a grand jury (often plea contexts).
• Indictment: grand jury charges; required for most federal felonies.

Each path affects timing and leverage. We use it to shape negotiations and motions practice.

Yes. Courts seal to prevent flight, protect investigations, or coordinate arrests. The seal typically lifts at arrest/first appearance or when secrecy is no longer needed. We monitor signals and, if charged, push for self-surrender to reduce disruption.

The Speedy Trial Act sets a 70-day clock (with many exclusions) and a 30-day minimum prep period. Complex white-collar cases often run many months. We enforce the clock when delay hurts the government and seek targeted time when it helps your defense.

You’re advised of charges, enter an initial plea (usually “not guilty”), and address release/detention. We come with a verified release plan (housing, employment, third-party custodian if needed) to maximize the chance you go home that day.

Many white-collar defendants are released with conditions. Judges weigh flight risk and danger. We present ties, a verified plan, financial transparency, and compliance safeguards. If detained, we can seek review.

Travel is usually restricted; passports surrendered; firearms prohibited. Courts often grant specific work/family travel with advance approval. We coordinate with Pretrial Services and file targeted motions when needed.

Yes. On changed circumstances (new job, medical needs, family events), we move to modify with a clean compliance record, itinerary, and safeguards. We also fight conditions that effectively function as detention.

Expect a violation report and potential arrest, tighter conditions, or detention. New crimes bring new charges. If there’s a misstep, call us immediately—transparent, corrective action can mitigate damage.

Often, yes—with guardrails (no contact with certain people, limited account control, monitoring). We tailor conditions so you can work and fund your defense.

Sometimes. Proffers may unlock cooperation credit but carry risk: statements can be used for leads and impeachment. We only proffer after rigorous prep and a negotiated letter tailored to your exposure.

§5K1.1 allows a downward departure at sentencing for substantial assistance; Rule 35(b) allows post-sentencing reductions. Only the government can move; the judge decides the amount. Value, timing, and credibility matter. We focus on corroboration and safety.

It’s your choice. You’re entitled to a trial plan and a clear plea-vs-trial analysis (exposure, defenses, rulings, witness credibility, guideline ranges). Prosecutors know who always pleads. Trial-ready counsel improves leverage.

• Alford: assert innocence, concede proof risk.
• Nolo: no contest; accept conviction/sentence without admission.
• Conditional: plead but preserve appeal of a specified pretrial ruling (requires consent).

We weigh civil/licensing/immigration consequences before recommending any of these.

DPA/NPA can resolve cases without conviction if you meet conditions (cooperation, restitution, compliance upgrades, monitors). Common for companies; individuals sometimes qualify with the right equities and remediation. We build persuasive mitigation packages.

Depends on the facts, forum, judge, jury pool, and—crucially—trial skill. Prosecutors track who tries and who folds. We build element-by-element defenses (intent, materiality, causation), attack weak proof, and force the government to meet its burden.

Ron has secured 175+ acquittals on federal counts and protected over $550M from fines/forfeitures. Results depend on facts, but a real trial record changes negotiations—and verdicts.

We teach the story early and test for biases: deference to government experts, “where there’s smoke…” heuristics, hostility to corporate structures. We use voir dire and demonstratives to replace stereotypes with your narrative.

Sometimes. Venue turns on where key conduct occurred (or wires, mailings, claims, or transactions were processed). Extreme pretrial publicity may support transfer. Even if venue stays, we address prejudice through voir dire and framing.

JDAs can share info and costs under common-interest privilege but raise conflict risks. We set clear terms, pressure-test alignment, and keep a Plan B if cooperation shifts. We seek severance where spillover prejudice threatens a fair trial.

Judges start with the advisory Guidelines then apply 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors (nature of offense, history/characteristics, deterrence, just punishment, protection of the public, rehabilitation). In white-collar, loss/gain, role, and acceptance matter—but mitigation (character, restitution, compliance reforms) moves outcomes.

A departure adjusts the guideline range per the Guidelines; a variance is outside the range under §3553(a). Post-Booker, judges frequently vary for individualized sentences. We argue both where justified.

Guideline use of acquitted conduct has been restricted by recent Commission amendments; judges still have broad §3553(a) discretion, but the trend aligns sentences with the verdict. We preserve objections and press for verdict-consistent sentences.

Generally 14 days from judgment to file a Notice of Appeal. Appeals target legal errors (suppression, instructions, evidentiary rulings, procedures). Plea agreements may include appeal waivers. We preserve issues at trial and assess the odds of reversal or sentence relief.

Possible avenues: Rule 35(b) (post-sentencing assistance), retroactive amendments, and compassionate release (extraordinary and compelling reasons). Each has tight rules; we document rehabilitation and public-safety factors.

They may restrain allegedly tainted assets—and sometimes seek substitute assets. We challenge nexus and valuation, push for carve-outs for living expenses/fees from untainted funds, and coordinate defenses across civil/criminal tracks.

Upon conviction, property derived from or used in the offense can be forfeited. If directly traceable property is gone, the government may pursue substitute assets you own. We contest taint, scope, and value and assert third-party interests in ancillary proceedings.

In many fraud cases restitution is mandatory to identified victims. We litigate actual loss, causation, offsets (insurance/recoupments), and feasible payment schedules, often with expert analysis to counter inflation.

Sometimes—through remission/mitigation, ancillary proceedings, or negotiated carve-outs (e.g., business-critical data). Timing, traceability, and third-party claims drive outcomes; we pursue targeted returns early.

We seek carve-outs for reasonable fees from untainted funds, propose bond-secured arrangements, or litigate improper restraints. We bill hourly with a tailored scope/budget after case review.

AKS criminalizes offering/receiving remuneration to induce referrals for federally reimbursed services. It’s intent-based and broad. Safe harbors exist but are technical. Violations risk criminal charges, civil penalties, and exclusion. We audit structures, retrofit to safe harbors, and defend investigations.

Stark is civil, strict-liability physician self-referral for Medicare DHS unless an exception applies. AKS is criminal and intent-based. Many deals must satisfy both. We align FMV, commercial reasonableness, and documentation—and consider self-disclosure when strategic.

UPICs are CMS contractors that investigate fraud/waste/abuse. Their requests can escalate to OIG/DOJ. We manage scope, sampling/statistics, and rebuttal analyses while protecting licensure and payer relationships.

18 U.S.C. §1347 punishes schemes to defraud health-care programs; prosecutors often pair with mail (§1341)/wire (§1343) when claims or communications cross state lines. We challenge scheme, materiality, intent, and causation with data, clinical experts, and compliance evidence.

Yes. DOJ evaluates design, implementation, and effectiveness. Documented training, audits, remediation, and independent authority can reduce charges/penalties and support variances. We harden programs fast and present that progress to prosecutors and courts.

Ron is lead counsel on every matter. Specialists (forensics, accounting, medical coding, PR) may join, but strategy and courtroom advocacy remain in Ron’s hands.

Yes—nationwide practice. Most cases are outside Michigan. Ron appears in federal courts across the U.S. (admitted/pro hac vice as needed).

We bill hourly. After initial review, you receive a scoped plan and budget range. Cost control comes from focus—fighting battles that move outcomes—and efficient staffing.

We use secure channels, clear privilege markings, and access controls. For corporate matters we give Upjohn warnings. We segregate privileged content and train stakeholders to avoid waiver traps.

175+ federal acquittals on counts; over $550M protected from fines/forfeitures; numerous dismissals, non-trial resolutions, and sentencing wins. Prior results don’t guarantee outcomes—but they change leverage.

Yes—under strict privilege/security. We use AI to accelerate research, sift discovery, build timelines, and stress-test theories. Lawyers review/validate everything. Technology augments speed; courtroom craft wins trials.

We limit data to need-to-know, use controlled environments, and prohibit third-party training on client materials. Outputs are treated as work product and lawyer-reviewed. If a tool can’t meet standards, we don’t use it.

No. AI can’t voir dire a jury, cross-examine a witness, or read courtroom dynamics. It buys time for advocacy—where cases are won.

Not if done right. We use vetted platforms with contractual confidentiality, strict access controls, and no training rights. We segregate and mark privileged content, and define control of the privilege.

Please don’t. Posts become exhibits; captions/metadata can be used against you. We implement litigation holds and craft a protective media plan to preserve reputation without risking the defense.