A target letter is a letter from a federal prosecutor informing you that you are the focus of a federal criminal investigation. It indicates that the government possesses substantial evidence linking you to a federal offense and is considering charging you. A target letter will contain key information for your lawyer to assist you. It will have a description of the suspected offense, and the name of the AUSA handling the case. As soon as we are retained, we reach out to that AUSA to learn more about the situation.

If you receive a target letter, reach out for legal counsel as soon as possible.

What is the difference between Target, Subject and Witness?

A “target” is someone prosecutors are investigating for having allegedly committed a crime. A “witness”, on the other hand, is someone whom prosecutors believe may have information that may help investigators. However, they’re not currently suspected of wrongdoing.

Finally, a “subject” falls in the middle. You are within the scope of the investigation, and your conduct is definitely being investigated, but the government has not decided yet whether to bring charges against you.

These labels are fluid. Your status can change as the government investigates further. That is why you need a lawyer whether or not you initially fall in any of these three categories. Remember anything you say can and WILL be used against you.

What If I Receive a Target Letter from the Department of Justice?

Contact us immediately.

Whether you’re a witness in a federal investigation or already a subject of a federal investigation, you need to know your rights before speaking with the government. We contact the AUSA immediately, as discussed above, but also we get a full understanding of the allegations against you so that we can begin our defense against any potential charges.

It is very important to hire legal counsel as soon as possible to protect your rights and assist you on the complex federal criminal justice system.

The Numbers

The 2026 Takedown did not match last year’s record numbers.  But, 455 defendants, including 90 doctors and other licensed medical professionals were charged.  The coordinated enforcement involved a “whole of government” approach which included:

• Actions by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to suspend 1,079 providers and revoke billing privileges for 1,403 providers.
• 48 Civil Monetary Payment settlements amounting to over $73 million, over 1,400 provider exclusions, and 25 actions by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”) under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law seeking more than $10 billion in payments to the Medicare Trust Fund from payments that CMS caught and suspended before the funds were paid to the fraudulent providers.
• Civil charges against 13 defendants for $14.8 million in health care fraud schemes, as well as civil settlements with 31 defendants totaling $23 million.
• 928 administrative cases by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seeking the revocation of authority to handle and/or prescribe controlled substances since October 1, 2025.

Increased “Whole of Government” approach

The government has always used multiple agencies in its efforts to combat fraud.  But the DOJ has now stated they are using “cutting-edge use of data analytics to target the worst actors”, including employing advanced data analytics through its Data Fusion Center. The DOJ is now working to ensure coordination with asset seizure, civil remedies, administrative actions, and payment-policy changes.  As a result, a single health care fraud investigation may now include parallel criminal, civil, administrative, exclusion, payment-suspension, and licensing consequences.  Conaway & Strickler, PC routinely handles licensing and regulatory issues as well as fighting False Claims Act issues at the civil and criminal level.  

Creation of the National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED”) 

NFED may be the clearest sign of this whole of government approach.  According to the April, 2026 DOJ memorandum, the NFED’s mission is to “zealously investigate and prosecute” fraud involving taxpayer dollars.  The 2026 Takedown appears to be NFED’s first major public health care fraud press release.

TRENDS: Healthcare Fraud in Allografts

Allografts and skin grafts cases have risen significantly from an emerging issue to front-line enforcement target.

The allograft cases are important to note because they clearly show what a healthcare investigation looks like in 2026.  The DOJ uses their data driven investigatory prowess to detect high reimbursement, aggressive marketing, alleged kickbacks, vulnerable patients, questionable medical necessity, and patient harm. In the press release for 2026, the DOJ charged 11 defendants in schemes involving allografts, and the press release described Medicare payments for allografts rising sharply before CMS adjusted payment rates.  

DOJ’s theory here is like the cancer genetic cases.  Both the allograft and CGx cases show a high payment for the claim which is an area that created an opportunity for fraud, according to the DOJ.  The 2026 Takedown shows how data analysis has moved to the forefront of their investigations. They comb through all the claims, match it with financial tracing and draw conclusions from there.

Thoughts for Health Care Companies

The 2026 Takedown reinforces that health care fraud enforcement is here to stay. As discussed above, the government investigations are becoming more coordinated, targeted and more focused on the numbers. 

It is important therefore to respond accordingly and be sure all documentation necessary is on hand before any type of inquiry occurs.  

Conaway & Strickler, PC has a deep understanding of these kinds of cases.  Sometimes, prompt disclosure and cooperation is the route to take and sometimes combatting the allegations is the route to take. We continue to monitor enforcement actions to remain aware of all of the newest developments.  Contact us for more information or for assistance.

The Whistleblower on Trial: The History and Uncertain Future of Zafirov v. Florida Medical

For over a century, the False Claims Act (FCA) has been the federal government’s most potent weapon against fraud. At its core sits the qui tam provision—a mechanism allowing private citizens (called “relators”) to sue companies on behalf of the government and pocket a portion of the recovered funds.

But a case in Florida has put the entire multi-billion-dollar whistleblower framework on trial. The case is United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC. After lower-court rulings and tense appellate arguments in December 2025, the legal and healthcare worlds are anxiously awaiting to see how the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals will rule.

The History of this False Claims Act suit: How We Got Here

The story began when Dr. Clarissa Zafirov, a physician in Florida, alleged that her employer and other defendants engaged in systemic Medicare fraud by misrepresenting patient conditions to pad federal reimbursements. The U.S. government chose not to intervene, leaving Dr. Zafirov to spearhead the complex litigation herself.

The defendants, however, didn’t just fight the fraud allegations; they attacked the constitutional foundation of the lawsuit. In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle dropped a bombshell by dismissing Zafirov’s suit. She didn’t rule on whether fraud occurred. Instead, she ruled that the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions are unconstitutional.

The Article II Battleground

Judge Mizelle’s ruling hinged on the Appointments Clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Is a Whistleblower an "Officer of the United States"? ├── YES ──> Must be appointed by the President, Courts, or Dept. Head. (FCA Fails) └── NO ──> Private citizen pursuing a claim. (FCA Succeeds)

Judge Mizelle argued that because a relator wields significant executive power—conducting civil litigation in the name of the United States to vindicate public rights—they act as an “Officer of the United States.” Because Dr. Zafirov appointed herself to this role by simply filing a complaint, her status bypassed constitutional appointment protocols. “Zafirov has determined which defendants to sue, which theories to raise, which motions to file, and which evidence to obtain… Yet no one… appointed Zafirov to the office of relator. Instead… Zafirov appointed herself. This she may not do.”
— Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle

While decades of judicial precedent across the country had uniformly rejected this argument, Judge Mizelle’s ruling breathed real life into a legal theory previously sparked by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a 2023 dissenting opinion (U.S. ex rel. Polansky), where Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett also expressed interest in reviewing the issue.

The Eleventh Circuit Showdown

The Department of Justice and Dr. Zafirov promptly appealed, leading to highly anticipated oral arguments before a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit on December 12, 2025.

The panel – Circuit Judges Elizabeth L. Branch, Robert J. Luck, and Senior District Judge Federico A. Moreno—focused intensely on the concept of control.

The arguments were mainly over two competing perspectives:

1. The Government’s and Relator’s Defense
The DOJ shifted its strategy slightly at oral arguments, focusing heavily on the “continuing position” prong of officer status. They argued that an “officer” must occupy a permanent, continuous government seat (like the Secretary of State). A whistleblower is a temporary, self-interested private actor whose role dissolves when the case ends. Furthermore, they argued the government retains ultimate control because it can step in and dismiss or settle the case at any time.

2. The Defense and Amici Pushback
Attorneys for Florida Medical and supporting business groups argued that when the government declines to intervene (which occurs in roughly 80% of FCA cases), the relator is entirely “in the driver’s seat.” They exercise massive, unaccountable federal authority to issue subpoenas, freeze corporate assets, and force massive settlements without answering to the President.

Prediction: How Might the 11th Circuit Rule?

Predicting appellate outcomes is tricky, but the panel’s questioning in December 2025 offered some clues. The judges did not treat the constitutionality of the FCA as a settled matter. They repeatedly pressed the DOJ on why Justice Thomas’s strict separation-of-powers logic was wrong.

The court essentially faces three paths:

1) Reverse the Dismissal (Uphold the FCA)
The court aligns with decades of historical practice and other circuits (like the Sixth Circuit’s January 2026 ruling), finding that private bounty-hunters are not public “officers.” Therefore it would remain business as usual. Whistleblower cases proceed normally in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

2) Affirm the Dismissal (Strike down Qui Tam)
The panel adopts Judge Mizelle’s and Justice Thomas’s strict textualist view that prosecuting public fraud is an exclusively executive function that cannot be outsourced to unappointed citizens. This would create Immediate chaos. Hundreds of pending qui tam cases in the Southeast would face dismissal, crippling a primary source of federal fraud recovery.

3) The Middle Ground (Narrow Procedural Fix)
The court rules that qui tam actions are only unconstitutional if the government completely declines to intervene, or suggests a fix where the DOJ must sign off on major litigation steps. A logistical headache for the DOJ, which would be forced to actively micromanage cases it initially wanted no part of.

The Verdict on the Horizon

Given the conservative, textualist leanings of the Eleventh Circuit panel, an affirmance (ruling the qui tam provision unconstitutional) is a highly distinct possibility. The judges seemed genuinely troubled by the lack of day-to-day executive oversight in declined whistle-blower lawsuits.

However, regardless of whether the Eleventh Circuit upholds the law or strikes it down, Zafirov is on a fast track to the ultimate destination. Because a stark circuit split is opening up between courts upholding the False Claims Act and those questioning it, this case is highly likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where the future of American whistleblower law will be decided once and for all.

Although it is not required, having an attorney assist you in physician license defense usually helps you achieve a better outcome than if you were on your own.

WHAT CAN AN ATTORNEY DO TO ASSIST?

If you have had an arrest for any crime, it is important to consult with an attorney to understand your duties to inform the Georgia Composite Medical Board. You may need to immediately self report if the arrest involved substance abuse or moral turpitude issues. How and when you communicate with the Board is crucial to your future success in maintaining your license.

In addition, when it comes time to renewal, you must answer the question about any interactions with law enforcement with a YES and attach a narrative. Again, having an attorney assist you with any and all communications with the Composite Board will help your ultimate success in maintaining your license as a physician.

WHAT IF MY LICENSE IS UNDER INVESTIGATION?

If you have been notified by the Georgia Composite Medical Board that you are under investigation, you should immediately contact an experienced health care physician license defense lawyer. We can assist you in all communications with the Board so that you don’t make any statements or submit any documents that could inadvertently hurt you. You will also need to contact your malpractice insurance carrier right away and be sure to document everything involved in what is alleged in the allegations.

WHAT IF I AM ASKED TO SURRENDER MY DEA REGISTRATION?

Has your clinic been subject to a search warrant? At the time of the execution of the search warrant, did one of the agents ask you to voluntarily surrender your DEA registration? You need to consult an attorney immediately not only because a search warrant was executed on your clinic, but, also because there are long term effects of surrendering your DEA registration. Submitting a DEA Form 104 (“Voluntary Surrender of Controlled Substances Registration”) without legal advice is not a good idea. Voluntary surrenders are also typically reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPBD).

WHAT IS THE NPBD?

The National Practitioner Data Bank was created by Congress in 1986 in order to prevent practitioners with histories of misconduct or incompetence from moving state to state without disclosure. Hospitals, state boards, malpractice insurers, and federal agencies are now legally required to report certain actions. There is an online guidebook that provides details on what specific actions are reported. Most importantly, any and all adverse restrictions or surrenders of privileges and adverse state licensing actions are reported.

Contact us immediately so that we can answer all of your questions and so that we can assist you in properly defend ing your physician license defense.

It is important to secure competent legal counsel as soon as possible to argue your case successfully.

There are many defenses that can be explored to get a positive outcome in your case. For example, the first one that comes to mind is entrapment. These days law enforcement often pose as other users in chat rooms or on the dark net. They pose as someone actively seeking CSAM. You may not have ever done anything illegal but for their persuading you to so. There are legal motions we can file that may be dispositive for your case.  Remember, the government has become well versed in programs like BitTorrent, and can be on the dark net doing things illegal themselves all in their efforts to “combat crime.”

Additionally, when law enforcement comes to execute a search warrant for devices at your home or office, they must have a valid search warrant or everything they seized will be discarded and not used in the case against you. You need an experienced criminal defense lawyer to ensure law enforcement did not violate your Constitutional rights in executing the search warrant.

Sometimes, a download from a proper website can result in what is termed as an “accidental download”. We have experts ready to assist us in showing the government exactly what is and what is not on your devices and what is and what was purposely downloaded and accessed.

These are but some defenses that Conaway & Strickler, PC have successfully argued. Contact us to discuss your case in more depth. The consequences of a child pornography or CSAM (“Child Sexual Abuse Material”) conviction are severe and life-altering. And the collateral consequence of being on the sex offender registry can be devastating. We are here to help.

To understand the specifics of this case, below we have quoted directly from the Petitioner’s Brief:

This case concerns the constitutionality of geofence warrants. For cell phone users to use certain services, their cell phones must continuously transmit their exact locations to their service providers. A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to obtain, from the service provider, the identities of users who were in the vicinity of a particular location at a particular time. In this case, law enforcement obtained, and served on Google, a geofence warrant seeking anonymized location data for every device within 150 meters of the location of a bank robbery within one hour of the robbery. After Google returned an initial list, law enforcement sought— without seeking an additional warrant—information about the movements of certain devices for a longer, two-hour period, and Google complied with that request as well. Then—again without seeking an additional warrant—law enforcement requested de anonymized subscriber information for three devices. One of those devices belonged to petitioner Okello Chatrie. Based on the evidence derived from the geofence warrant, petitioner was convicted of armed robbery.

The last time the Supreme Court wrestled with cell phone privacy issues was in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), which is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information. The Court held in that case that the government violates the Fourth Amendment when accessing historical cell phone Iocation records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant. That case, however, was after a suspect was identified, making it unlike the current case before the Supreme Court.

We receive terabytes of data in discovery for our cases. Motions to suppress can be filed for all of the data seized from search warrants of phones. We are cognizant of the ever changing landscape of Fourth Amendment case law. We ensure that law enforcement follows the appropriate procedures for every single case. Contact us now if you have a case you would like to discuss.

The recent conviction involving AI-generated obscene material of women and children highlights complex legal issues arising from the intersection of technology and criminal law. The Department of Justice is saying this is the first in the nation – a conviction of violating the new Take It Down Act. This new legislation, targeting AI-generated content, opens the door to prosecution of newly-defined crimes, but also raises critical questions about evidence, intent, due process, among others. This is especially an issue with any charges alleging CSAM (Child Sex Abuse Material). Recent cases are increasingly alleging use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to digitally alter clothed images of minors into child pornography.

Prosecutors now have the ability to pursue cases involving synthetic media that depict explicit material. The use of AI to generate highly realistic images and videos makes these cases unique, requiring forensic expertise to distinguish fabricated content from authentic imagery. The prosecution must prove that the defendant knowingly produced and distributed material deemed obscene under the law, regardless of its digital origins.

One avenue for CSAM prosecution involves demonstrating that AI-generated content was used with the intent to exploit, harass, or endanger individuals. The law may enable prosecutors to argue that even virtual representations pose real harm, especially when circulated widely. In such cases, expert testimony and digital forensics play a crucial role in examining detailed technological material.

However, the defense may challenge the scope and application of the new law, questioning whether AI-generated images constitute actual offenses under existing legal definitions of obscenity and exploitation. Furthermore, issues of free speech and artistic expression may arise, requiring careful legal navigation. It is essential for courts to weigh the balance between protecting society and safeguarding individual rights.

As technology evolves, so must legal strategies. Defense attorneys fighting for clients charged with CSAM must remain vigilant, not only in protecting the rights of the accused, but also in ensuring that prosecution under new laws is fair, evidence-based, and respectful of civil liberties. The emergence of AI-generated content cases marks a new chapter in criminal justice.

If you or a loved one is facing charges related to AI-generated content, contact the attorneys at Conaway & Strickler to discuss your legal options.

I have received a subpoena from the SEC what do I do? 

It is important to understand that when you receive a subpoena from the SEC it is most definitely not the beginning of an investigation, but it is the beginning of your knowledge that there is an investigation.  If you have received a subpoena from the SEC, your first and immediate step is to contact an attorney who can help guide you through the process and get the best resolution possible.  

What is the process? 

First, the majority of the Securities and Exchange Commission must issue what is called a formal order of investigation. This is a formal order within the SEC that gives authority to start issuing subpoeanas, and the like. It is important to note that without that order, the SEC’s enforcement attorneys can request your cooperation, but they cannot require it.

The distinction is very important.  Before there is a formal order SEC staff can still conduct an investigation but it’s done in a more informal way. It is very similar to a federal agent coming by your office and just “asking a few questions”. They may imply it’s informal and no big deal – but it is. Even if you are contacted this way, it is imperative to understand that these conversations are not casual.   Everything you say and do can and will be held against you.   And it can be the information that is used to procure the formal order. 

What is a subpoena duces tecum? 

A subpoena duces tecum compels the production of documents. It is a legal order requiring a person to produce documents or tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. The term “duces tecum” comes from the Latin phrase “you shall bring with you.”. It includes correspondence, emails, contracts, financial records, trading logs, and communications on all types of platforms that include WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc per the revised 2026 Enforcement Manual. The subpoena will specify a deadline and an address for production. An experienced attorney may be able to secure a delay in this deadline so that there is adequate time to comply.

What is a preservation obligation?

There is a duty to preserve once an investigation has begun. These obligations now extend to encrypted communications on personal devices.  The preservation obligation attaches at the moment of service, and in certain cases before: the 2026 Manual directs enforcement staff to issue preservation letters early in an investigation, which means the duty to preserve may predate a subpoena by weeks.

What is a subpoena ad testificandum? 

A subpoena ad testificandum compels you to appear at a designated time and place to give sworn testimony.

Securing counsel early on is key.  Contact us so we can help.  Complying with SEC subpoenas is complicated and time consuming. Even after complying, the investigation stage is a long process. It is important to have qualified counsel throughout.  Remember all of the aspects of the SEC investigation can and usually does run parallel to a criminal investigation by the DOJ.  

For example, the SEC recently filed charges against purported crypto asset trading platforms Morocoin Tech Corp., Berge Blockchain Technology Co. Ltd., and Cirkor Inc. and investment clubs AI Wealth Inc., Lane Wealth Inc., AI Investment Education Foundation Ltd., and Zenith Asset Tech Foundation alleging that they defrauded retail investors out of more than $14 million in an elaborate investment confidence scam.

“AI Wealth, Lane Wealth, AIIEF, and Zenith operated so-called investment clubs using WhatsApp and solicited investors to join the clubs with ads on social media. The clubs gained investors’ confidence with supposedly AI-generated investment tips before luring investors to open and fund accounts on purported crypto asset trading platforms Morocoin, Berge, and Cirkor, which falsely claimed to have government licenses, as alleged. The investment clubs and platforms then allegedly offered “Security Token Offerings” that were purportedly issued by legitimate businesses. In reality, no trading took place on the trading platforms, which were fake, and the Security Token Offerings and their purported issuing companies did not exist, according to the complaint. When investors tried to withdraw their funds, the complaint alleges that the defendants further defrauded victims by demanding that they pay advance fees. In all, the defendants misappropriated at least $14 million from U.S.-based retail investors and funneled those funds overseas through a web of bank accounts and crypto asset wallets, as alleged.”

In another recent case, a young man, Elmin Redzepagic was charged in a 21-count indictment offenses related to an alleged cryptocurrency fraud scheme. As alleged in the indictment, Redzepagic “held himself out to investors as a cryptocurrency investor who earned high rates of return. Once Redzepagic had victims’ initial investment, he told them they had earned a substantial profit but had to pay additional fees (“gas fees”) to withdraw it. Redzepagic claimed to work as part of a team that included someone known as “The Chef,” who supposedly led the operation and determined who, how, and when investors would receive their profits. In fact, Redzepagic did not invest victims’ funds in cryptocurrency but instead transferred the funds to Stake.com, an offshore gambling platform that Redzepagic used to receive and hold proceeds of the scheme, to generate cryptocurrency addresses for victims to use to transfer Bitcoin to him, and to make large “lulling” payments to victims throughout the course of the scheme.”

Finally, in another case, Goliath Ventures founder Christopher Alexander Delgado has been arrested on a criminal complaint charging him with wire fraud and money laundering. It is alleged that this “was a “Ponzi scheme,” which is a form of investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Delgado’s scheme involved soliciting victims to invest substantial sums of money under false and fraudulent promises of monthly returns generated through cryptocurrency “liquidity pools.” Victims were induced to give money to Goliath through personal referrals, professional marketing materials, luxury events, charitable sponsorships, and some monthly payments of purported returns, all of which were designed to establish Goliath’s bona fides with investors. Based on these false and fraudulent representations, Goliath obtained at least $328 million from victim investors.

Although Goliath represented that it would place the victim investors’ funds in cryptocurrency liquidity pools, in reality, the funds were primarily used to pay purported returns to earlier investors, to return principal to investors who requested it, and for Goliath’s extravagant business gatherings, holiday parties, and luxury travel accommodations. With victim investors’ funds, Delgado purchased four residential properties each worth between $1.15 million and $8.5 million.”

The FBI has recently stated that “cryptocurrency investment fraud, which the media commonly describes as “pig butchering,” is one of the most prevalent and damaging fraud schemes today.” As a result, more and more DOJ prosecutions are happening. Please contact us if you have received any sort of indication that you are under federal investigation.

Synthetic child sexual abuse material (CSAM) may not involve a camera or physical contact but it will depicts a child in a sexual context and thus is subject to regulation. Artificial intelligence is used to create realistic images or videos of children in sexual situations. Sometimes, these materials depict completely fabricated children or the face or likeness of a real child, placing them into sexualized content without their knowledge or consent. When it is the face or likeness of a real child, there is a higher likelihood of charges being imminent.

Can I be Charged with Synthetic CSAM?

It is possible to be charged criminally when in possession of AI generated child sex abuse material. There has been some movement in this area to litigate the legality of charging such activity criminally and only time will tell what that means for how the Supreme Court will rule as recent cases move through the system. News continues to state that AI – Generated CSAM is on the rise and “a growing concern” which will in turn result in additional federal and state criminal charges for AI-Generated CSAM.

Regulation of AI-created intimate images, often referred to as “deep fakes” has been broadly adopted by most states and the federal government. In the state of Georgia, there have been several attempts to change legislation including this recent letter written by Jon Ossoff. There are also recent prosecutions including a man in KY who was sentenced to five years for using AI to create child sexual abuse material. Prosecutions at the federal level for CSAM is on the rise as well.

If you learn that you are under investigation for offenses related to CSAM, you should contact us immediately. We are here to help and have experience to fight these cases.

Vehicular homicide charges can be brought against someone when a death results from an auto accident. The State of Georgia has two types of vehicular homicide charges: first degree (felony) and second degree (misdemeanor).  

FELONY VEHICULAR HOMICIDE

First-degree vehicular homicide is a felony.  O.C.G.A. § 40-6-393(a) and (b) states that a person commits homicide by vehicle in the first degree when:

Without malice aforethought, a person causes the death of another by

• Overtaking and passing a school bus (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-163);
• Reckless driving (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-390);
• Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391); 
• Fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-395);
• Hit and run. (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-270); or 
• Leaving the scene of the accident (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-270 

For all of the above situations, the penalty is three to fifteen years.  The criminal defense attorneys at Conaway & Strickler, PC, have been able to get those 3 years probated for several of our clients.  It is very important to retain a lawyer very early on after the accident so that all of your rights are protected and you get the best legal defense possible.  

Recently, an 18 year old was charged with felony first degree vehicular homicide in the death of beloved teacher Jason Hughes in Hall County, Georgia.  Meg Strickler recently discussed this case on the Law & Crime network. 

MISDEMEANOR VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 

Other than the driving offenses delineated above for felony vehicular homicide, all other simple misdemeanor traffic offenses will result in misdemeanor vehicular homicide.   Simple traffic charges can include failure to maintain lane, distracted driving, running a red light, etc.  

If you are a facing vehicular homicide case, contact us for more information and to retain a criminal defense attorney in Georgia who will represent your best interests.  

STEPS IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCESS (Note: this blog will discuss the procedure for a plea. For more information on what to expect at federal criminal trial, read more here.)

Initial Appearance

Generally, after an investigation, charges are brought via a federal criminal indictment. Hiring a federal criminal defense attorney as soon as possible results in a better resolution.

Once an indictment is filed, and you are arrested and processed/charged with a federal crime, you are brought before a magistrate judge for an initial hearing on the case. At that time, you learn more about your rights and the charges against you, and the judge decides whether to grant you pretrial release or order you be detained.

Arraignment

This hearing can occur at the same time as the initial appearance. You are asked if you have read and understood the charges against you and you formally enter a plea of “Not Guilty”.

Discovery

Federal criminal discovery is governed by three sources of law: Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court cases of Brady and Giglio, and the Jencks Act.

Plea Negotiations

The plea bargain itself, called a “Rule 11” plea in the Federal Criminal Justice system, generally is memorialized in a 15-20 page document called the “plea agreement“.

Change of Plea Hearing

A change of plea hearing in federal court is scheduled when a defendant decides to plead guilty to a federal offense. During the hearing, the judge will ask questions to ensure that the plea is entered freely and voluntarily.

Preparation of Pre-Sentence Report

After you enter a plea of guilty to a federal offense or is convicted by trial, you will meet with a probation officer. The probation officer will conduct an interview you to get more information about the entire case and then submits a report for the judge to determine the proper sentence. The following information is gathered during this interview and pre sentence investigation: family history, community ties, education background, employment history, military history, physical health, mental and emotional health, history of substance abuse, financial condition, and willingness to accept responsibility for the offense. Learn more about the pre-sentence report and the pre-sentence report interview.

United States Sentencing Guidelines

The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are what the judge uses to decide an appropriate sentence for each case.

Sentencing Hearing

A federal sentencing hearing is when final arguments are presented and a judge hands down the sentence.