Source: https://nationallegalprofessionalassociates.wordpress.com/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:13:42+00:00

Document:
Oftentimes, criminal defendants request assistance from NLPA regarding pre-trial issues. One of the most prevalent pre-trial issues that NLPA deals with is motions to suppress evidence. While most such motions involve an illegal stop of a vehicle or a faulty search warrant, NLPA is also involved in cutting edge research regarding the propriety of wiretaps. Such was the case regarding the prosecution of Marshall Evans in United States v. Reginald Chantez Rice, et al., No. 3:04CR-83-R (D. Ky. October 13, 2005). This case demonstrates how NLPA can assist counsel in the preparation of pre-trial suppression arguments in an effort to ensure that criminal defendant’s are tried only upon evidence that has been properly and constitutionally obtained and is admissible at trial.
In Mr. Evans’ case, the government obtained a court order allowing for the use of a wiretap on May 26, 2004. A subsequent order was granted for the use of a wiretap on June 23, 2004. A third order was granted for use of a wiretap on July 21, 2004. Mr. Evans sought suppression of the evidence obtained from said wiretaps, as it was argued that: (1) the United States failed to minimize the intercepted communications as required by statute; (2) the affidavit supporting the June wiretap application lacked probable cause; (3) the extension of the June wiretap order was invalid because the June wiretap order was improvidently granted; (4) the United States failed to meet the requirement of attempting to employ normal investigative techniques; and (5) the recorded conversations were not sealed within the required time period.
The district court granted the suppression because the government failed to show that other investigative procedures had been tried and proven to be unsuccessful prior to requesting a wiretap. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c). The government had previously heard suspects in this case conversing on cellular telephones. As such, the wiretap application mentioned that wiretapping said means of communication would be the easiest way to obtain the needed evidence. However, the government failed to list whether other investigatory means had been used. As such, the June wiretap order was invalid. As the June wiretap order was invalid, a subsequent July wiretap order was also ruled invalid, as it flowed from the initial wiretap order. All evidence obtained from the June and July wiretaps was ruled inadmissible at Mr. Evans’ trial.
Clearly, NLPA’s research paid off for Mr. Evans. Due to its experience, NLPA was well aware of the stringent requirements needed to obtain a wiretap order, and the necessity of continually meeting these requirements in order to obtain subsequent orders. While only one of the aforementioned arguments attacking the wiretap order was successful, NLPA notes that there are many ways to attack a wiretap order, all of which depend upon a comprehensive and technical reading of federal law. Furthermore, NLPA is not only at the forefront of attacking wiretap orders, but has consistently been at the forefront of many Fourth Amendment issues, as NLPA realizes that law enforcement must recognize the rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Should you find yourself in a similar situation, NLPA stands ready to assist you in the research and preparation of any motions or documents necessary to assist you in the vigorous defense of your client.
We all know that the question of admissibility of evidence is often one of the key aspects to the defense in a criminal prosecution. The case of United States v. Sullivan, (S.D. Illinois , #02-CR-40030-1) is a most recent example of how the team approach of National Legal Professional Associates working with counsel has successfully stopped the government in its attempts to use illegally obtained evidence against a defendant. In this case, NLPA assisted Benton, Illinois attorney Paula Newcomb, in researching and supporting a motion to suppress physical evidence discovered and seized in a warrantless search of a hotel room.
Remedies Available to a Defendant who has been Convicted of a Conspiracy when there was Insufficient Evidence to Support the Conviction – Another NLPA victory!
Virtually every day we are contacted by both defendants and legal counsel who raise the complaint that they or their clients have been convicted at trial in a conspiracy case where there was essentially no evidence to support the conviction returned by the jury. The case of United States v. Richards (Case No. 89-10264, 9th Cir. 1991) is an excellent example of this type of situation and the remedies that are available to a defendant who faces this dilemma.
Mr. Richards was convicted in a jury trial in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California of conspiracy to import marijuana and cocaine, aiding and abetting the importation of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and traveling in foreign commerce to promote unlawful activity. Approximately 2 ½ years after the alleged crimes occurred, the DEA obtained a series of search warrants to search Mr. Richards’ residence. During the course of the search of his residence, agents found hidden in a fake vent in the wall of the den four kilograms of cocaine and triple beam scale. During the course of trial, the government was unable to produce any evidence to prove beyond a doubt that Mr. Richards knew of the existence of the cocaine being hidden in the vent or that it was his cocaine. Nonetheless, the jury found Mr. Richards guilty and he was subsequently sentenced to a term of confinement of 35 years.
Subsequent to his incarceration, Mr. Richards then contacted NLPA and asked that NLPA assist his counsel in the research and preparation of the appeal of his conviction. NLPA prepared the appeal brief which was then filed by Mr. Richards’ counsel in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The primary issue raised on appeal was whether or not there was sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Richards’ conviction.
As the result of NLPA’s assistance, Mr. Richards has been saved the hardship of serving a 15-year term of confinement.
If you or your client are facing a situation where you believe that the government has obtained a conviction in a conspiracy case where there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction and you desire to have assistance in pursuing your post-conviction rights, contact National Legal Professional Associates.
Many of you are aware of the serious damage at sentencing that can result from a court’s application of the Career Offender enhancement under § 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. An even greater concern arises when the enhancement is incorrectly applied. Recently, National Legal Professional Associates, working with counsel, successfully challenged a defendant’s status as a career offender under 28 USC § 2255 thereby reducing its client’s sentencing exposure by 20 years.
A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time of the instant offense, (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense, and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.
The Section then provides for an increase in the criminal history category and an upward adjustment in the offense level if those three factors are satisfied. In the case of United States v. Dudley, U.S.D.C. Ala. (1995), the probation office relied upon two previous drug possession convictions to support the career offender enhancement. As a result, the defendant’s sentence for the controlled substance offense, which formed the basis of his current conviction, was increased from the otherwise applicable sentencing range of 21-27 months to 262-327 months.
However, § 4B1.2 of the guidelines limits the definition of a “controlled substance offense” as one under federal or state law which prohibit “the possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.” NLPA’s research revealed that the defendant’s simple possession convictions could not satisfy the guidelines’ definition, and that the career offender enhancement was erroneously applied in the defendant’s case. Working with counsel, NLPA included this argument as a due process violation in the defendant § 2255 motion. After the attorney filed the motion with the district court, both the government and the court agreed that defendant should be resentenced absent the career offender enhancement. Accordingly, when the defendant appears for resentencing in November, 1995, approximately 240 months of his sentence will be vacated.
Once again, NLPA has demonstrated its ability to identify key elements of an individual’s sentence or conviction which are susceptible to constitutional challenge, research the controlling case law, and draft the argument in such a way to obtain substantial relief for your client. At NLPA, we will pleased to apply our expertise and dedication to your client’s case to ensure that your client serves only that sentence which is actually authorized by law.

References: v. 
 § 2518
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 4
 § 2255