Source: https://www.defenselawyerfederalcrime.com/multi-jurisdictional-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:26:48+00:00

Document:
Attorney David M. Dudley has had the unique experience of handling cases at the trial level in 44 United States District Courts and 48 county and parish trial courts across the country. Many of his clients have faced charges simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions, generally in multiple federal courts, often in both federal and state courts, sometimes in different state courts.
Because of his nationwide experience, Mr. Dudley is better equipped to handle these multi-jurisdictional cases than other lawyers. By using that experience to resolve such cases creatively, Mr. Dudley has consistently obtained results for his clients that have been superior to those the client would have obtained had he or she hired a different lawyer in a different jurisdiction.
Cases can be multi-jurisdictional for several reasons. For instance, in state courts, the victim of a crime might live in a different state from where the crime occurred. Or, the alleged criminal may reside in a different state from where the crime was committed.
However, more often than not, multi-jurisdictional cases involve both state and federal charges or multiple federal courts. A defendant can be tried for the same crime in more than one court. If convicted state and federally, a prison sentence is first served in a state prison, followed by the federal sentence.
Some cases of this nature can be charged as Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization cases. The RICO act was passed in 1970 and aimed at giving the federal government tools to attack organized crime. A RICO charge increases the severity of penalties. In order to qualify as a RICO case, prosecutors need to establish evidence of the existence of a criminal organization.
The RICO act also allows the alleged victims of RICO violations to file civil litigation against the alleged criminal. If successful, the plaintiffs can receive compensation as much as three times the amount of actual damages, plus the costs of the civil case and attorney fees.
Mr. Dudley has unparalleled experience handling multi-jurisdictional cases. To speak with him about your situation, contact our law office today.
U.S. v. G.M.: Defendant was facing an indictment in Los Angeles, California for delivering four kilograms of cocaine to an undercover DEA agent and an indictment in Gary, Indiana for shipping over 300 kilograms of cocaine to the Chicago area. After lengthy settlement negotiations in both jurisdictions, the defendant pleaded guilty to the California case to resolve both cases. Ultimately, the defendant received a sentence of 37 months for all charges.
U.S. v. W.D.: While fighting a federal cocaine case in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the defense discovered that the defendant had also been indicted by a federal grand jury in Denver, Colorado for distributing crack in that city. Pursuant to settlement discussions involving the United States Attorneys for both districts, the Colorado case was transferred to Philadelphia. Under a package disposition, the defendant received a total prison term of six months.
C v. L.B.: After fleeing crack cocaine charges in Boston, Massachusetts, the defendant, a Jamaican citizen in the United States as permanent resident, was arrested escaping from an apartment at which police found over 400 pounds of marijuana. After plea negotiations, the defendant received a total sentence between the two state jurisdictions of eight months. A federal immigration court later allowed the defendant to remain in the United States and reinstated his permanent resident status.
U.S. v. A.R.: The defendant was under federal investigation in Missouri and California for organizing and supervising a continuing criminal enterprise. Subsequent to the defendant’s indictment in Kansas City, Missouri, the defense negotiated a transfer of all charges to the Central District of California. Although the defendant was facing possible life sentence, and the government recommended a prison term of over 15 years, the district court ultimately sentenced him to only 8 years.
U.S. v. R.L.: The defendant was allegedly an organizer of a large cocaine trafficking ring, which distributed drugs to Nashville, Tennessee and other southern cities. After federal prosecutors indicted him in Nashville, the defense negotiated a transfer of the case to Los Angeles. Although he was initially facing a sentence of over ten years, the defendant was sentenced to a prison term, which resulted in him serving six months in federal custody.
S. v. M.J.: Simultaneously, the defendant faced felony charges in three states: perjuriously obtaining false identification in Texas, possessing illegal precursor chemicals in New Mexico, and conspiring to distributing PCP in California, among other charges. Although the defendant had two prior felony drug convictions, the defense worked out separate plea agreements in all jurisdictions, which led to the defendant serving less than 30 months in custody.
U.S. v. T.S.: The defendant was indicted for over $6,000,000 in bank fraud in three jurisdictions: the District of Minnesota, the District of West Virginia, and the Central District of California. After extended negotiations, the defendant, who was looking at 20 to 30 years in federal custody, received a sentence of less than 8 years.
U.S. v. M.M.: While awaiting sentencing for a 300- pound federal marijuana offense in Texas, the defendant delivered over 100 pounds of marijuana to an undercover informant in Missouri while carrying a gun in his car. After the defense convinced the prosecutor in Missouri to DISMISS the charge that the defendant possessed the firearm in furtherance of the marijuana transaction, both cases were resolved for a total prison term of 37 months.
U.S. v. B.B.: The defendant was charged with drug trafficking and money laundering in three different federal jurisdictions for allegedly being a key participant in an international cocaine distribution network. The defense negotiated a settlement in which federal prosecutors agreed to DISMISS all the drug charges in exchange for a guilty plea to some money laundering counts. At sentencing, the defense convinced the court to impose a term of PROBATION with a split sentence of incarceration in which the defendant served a prison term of only five months.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.