Criminal Defense Lawyers

Oregon Federal Criminal Defense Lawyers

Oregon Federal Criminal Defense Lawyers

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our mission is to provide you with the truth about federal criminal defense in Oregon – not the version that makes you feel better, but the reality you need to understand if federal agents are investigating you or if you’ve recieved a target letter. What follows is information most federal defense websites wont tell you directly becuase it challenges the comforting narratives about Oregon being a progressive, lenient prosecution environment.

Here’s what nobody tells you about Oregon federal courts: the state’s progressive reputation is dangerously misleading. People think Oregon’s liberal politics extend to federal law enforcement, but that’s exactly backwards. Because 60% of Oregon is federal land – Bureau of Land Management property, National Forests, Parks – the District of Oregon has more federal jurisdiction over ordinary conduct than almost any state in the country. The prosecutors here don’t just handle major crimes. They federalize conduct that would be minor state charges elsewhere. Worse, Oregon has become an experimental prosecution district were federal prosecutors test aggressive new strategies – using terrorism statutes to prosecute environmental crimes, going after state-legal marijuana businesses through tax code violations, and charging protesters with federal civil unrest crimes they later dismiss after the defendant is financially destroyed. The progressive state reputation sitting on top of one of the most aggressive federal prosecution machines in America creates a trap: people think there protected by Oregon law when they’re actually exposed to federal prosecution for conduct that’s completely legal at the state level.

If federal agents have contacted you in Oregon, understand this: the District of Oregon conviction rate mirrors the national average of 90%+ guilty pleas, environmental crimes here are prosecuted under terrorism statutes with 5-year mandatory minimums, and state-legal marijuana businesses face catastrophic federal exposure through IRS enforcement mechanisms that operate invisibly until the audit becomes an indictment. Todd Spodek and the Spodek Law Group team have handled federal cases across the country, including Oregon’s unique federal prosecution environment. This article explains what your actually facing.

The Progressive State Built on 60% Federal Land

Oregon’s progressive reputation – marijuana legalization, environmental protection, criminal justice reform – operates at the state level. Federal law dosent care about Oregon’s politics. And here’s the jurisdictional reality that makes Oregon different: approximately 60% of the state is federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service. That percentage is higher than almost any state outside Alaska and Nevada.

What this means in practice is that ordinary activities – camping, hunting, fishing, mushroom foraging, even driving through certain areas – fall under federal jurisdiction if they touch federal property. And federal prosecutors in the District of Oregon, operating out of courthouses in Portland, Eugene, and Medford, have shown a willingness to federalize conduct that would be handled as state misdemeanors elsewhere.

Defense attorneys practicing in Oregon have noted this pattern repeatedly. As one federal defense lawyer explained on a legal forum, “Oregon prosecutors will federalize anything touching federal land or property. I’ve seen simple assault cases that should of been state charges become federal prosecutions becuase they happened on Forest Service land. The exposure jumps from maybe 6 months to 5+ years.” This isnt speculation. This is the reality practitioners see in there Oregon federal cases.

The District of Oregon handles approximately 600-800 federal criminal cases annually. Portland division handles the majority, but Eugene and Medford divisions are active, particularly for environmental crimes and rural drug conspiracies. The conviction rate mirrors the national federal average: roughly 90% of defendants plead guilty, less then 2% go to trial, and of those who go to trial, the acquittal rate hovers around 0.4%. These numbers are consistent with federal prosecution everywhere – but the difference in Oregon is the breadth of conduct that becomes federalized due to the massive federal land footprint.

Heres the irony. Oregon’s natural beauty – the forests, the mountains, the wilderness areas that make the state attractive – is also what makes ordinary conduct vulnerable to federal prosecution. The more federal land there is, the more federal jurisdiction prosecutors have. The wilderness is a federal jurisdiction trap, and most people have no idea when they’ve crossed from state law into federal territory.

The Terrorism Statute They Use on Ranchers

In October 2015, a federal judge in Oregon sentenced two ranchers, Dwight Hammond and his son Steven, to five years in federal prison. There crime? Setting fires on there own private land that spread to adjacent Bureau of Land Management property. The Hammonds claimed the fires were controlled burns to manage invasive species. Prosecutors argued they were covering up poaching. Regardless of intent, the fires damaged federal land.

But heres were Oregon’s experimental prosecution approach becomes visible. Federal prosecutors didnt charge the Hammonds with negligence or reckless burning. They charged them under 18 USC 844(f)(1), which is part of the federal arson and explosives statute. This statute carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. The statute was designed for terrorism cases.

The trial judge, Michael Hogan, initially sentenced the Hammonds to much shorter sentences – 3 months for Dwight, 12 months for Steven – saying that five years would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses.” But federal prosecutors appealed the sentence as illegally low. The Ninth Circuit agreed. Judge Hogan was forced to resentence the Hammonds to the five-year mandatory minimum, even though he believed the sentence was unjust.

This case sparked national controversy. It led directly to the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016 by Ammon Bundy and his supporters, who argued the Hammond prosecution was federal government overreach. Eventually, President Trump pardoned the Hammonds in 2018. But by that point, the ranchers had already served years in federal prison under a terrorism statute for what was essentially a land management dispute.

The Hammond case isnt an isolated outlier. It reveals prosecution strategy. The District of Oregon prosecutes more environmental crimes per capita than almost any other federal district in the country. According to federal sentencing data:

• Environmental crimes in Oregon: Average 3.2 years
• Drug trafficking cases: Average 5.1 years
• White collar crimes: Average 2.8 years

Think about what that reveals. In Oregon’s federal system, environmental violations are treated almost as seriously as drug trafficking.

Why? Becuase 60% of Oregon is federal land, environmental enforcement is a priority. Federal prosecutors partner with EPA Criminal Investigation Division and work closely with environmental advocacy groups who demand aggressive prosecution. The political pressure, combined with the massive federal jurisdiction, makes Oregon an experimental district for harsh environmental enforcement tactics.

And heres what makes this dangerous for anyone who owns land adjacent to federal property, operates a business involving natural resources, or uses federal land recreationally. The statutes prosecutors use – like 18 USC 844 – were designed for completely different conduct but carry mandatory minimums that eliminate judicial discretion. A rancher burning land becomes a “terrorist” under the statute, and the judge has no power to impose a proportional sentence. The Hammond case proves that even when the prosecution is so excessive that it leads to presidential pardons, you still serve years in federal prison first.

The State-Legal Business That Faces 20 Years Federal

Oregon legalized recreational marijuana in 2014. As of 2025, hundreds of legal dispensaries operate across the state, generating millions in tax revenue. The state regulates these businesses. Issues licenses. Treats marijuana commerce as legitimate industry. And that creates one of the most dangerous traps in Oregon federal criminal law.

Federal law still classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. Every dispensary in Oregon is violating federal drug trafficking statutes. The only reason they operate is becuase of federal enforcement discretion – the decision by federal prosecutors not to prosecute state-legal marijuana businesses. But that discretion can disappear instantly, and when it does, the consequences are catastrophic.

Heres the mechanism that destroys marijuana business owners. Because marijuana remains federally illegal, banks wont service these businesses – opening an account for a marijuana company violates federal money laundering statutes from the bank’s perspective. So dispensaries operate as cash-only businesses. Large amounts of cash. And cash creates two federal vulnerabilities.

First: IRS Code 280E (The Tax Trap)

IRS Code 280E prohibits businesses trafficking in controlled substances from deducting ordinary business expenses. A normal business deducts rent, salaries, utilities, supplies. A marijuana dispensary cannot. This creates enormous tax liability. Many dispensary owners try to manage this by deducting expenses anyway, classifying them creatively, or underreporting income. When the IRS audits – and they do audit marijuana businesses at much higher rates than other industries – those deductions become tax fraud. Federal tax fraud. With exposure of 3-5 years per count.

Second: Structuring (The Cash Trap)

Cash businesses making large deposits face scrutiny. If you deposit over $10,000 in cash, banks must file a Currency Transaction Report with FinCEN. Many marijuana business owners try to avoid this reporting by making deposits just under $10,000. Federal prosecutors call this “structuring” – deliberately avoiding reporting requirements. Structuring is a federal felony under 31 USC 5324, punishible by up to 10 years in prison. So the marijuana business owner faces an impossible choice: deposit large amounts and trigger reporting, or deposit smaller amounts and commit structuring. Normal business operations become federal crimes.

Now heres the counter-argument, becuase its important to address directly. You might be thinking: “But Oregon hasnt actually prosecuted that many marijuana businesses federally. This seems like fear-mongering about a problem that rarely happens.” Theres truth in that objection. Visible DEA raids of dispensaries are rare. Most Oregon marijuana businesses operate without federal prosecution.

But the absence of visible prosecutions dosent mean absence of danger. It means the prosecution operates through different mechanisms. Marijuana prosecutions in Oregon come through IRS enforcement, not DEA raids. The audit is the investigation. By the time a dispensary owner knows they’re being prosecuted for tax fraud, they’ve already provided all the evidence the government needs through there tax returns, there bank records, there business filings. The prosecution is invisible until the indictment arrives.

And even if prosecution risk is relatively low, the exposure is so catastrophic that the risk-reward calculation is insane. A dispensary owner running a completely legal state business faces potential 20+ year federal exposure:

• 5 years for tax fraud
• 10 years for structuring
• Additional time for drug trafficking if prosecutors decide to charge the underlying marijuana sales

The state legality dosent protect you. It creates a false sense of security that makes the federal vulnerability worse becuase people dont see it coming.

Todd Spodek has represented clients nationally in federal tax and financial crimes cases. The pattern in marijuana business prosecutions is that defendants are blindsided. They believed state legality meant safety. By the time they realize there facing federal charges, they’ve already made statements to IRS agents during the audit that become evidence against them.

When The Indictment IS The Punishment

In the summer of 2020, Portland experienced months of protests. Some protests remained peaceful. Others involved confrontations with law enforcement, property damage, and violence. When protests spilled onto federal property – the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse in downtown Portland – federal prosecutors got jurisdiction.

Between 2020 and 2024, federal prosecutors in the District of Oregon charged over 90 individuals with federal crimes related to the Portland protests. The statute they used most frequently was 18 USC 231, the federal civil unrest statute. This statute carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The charges were serious. Federal charges mean federal bail standards, federal pretrial detention, federal sentencing guidelines.

Heres what happened to many of those defendants:

• They couldnt afford experienced federal criminal defense attorneys
• They faced enormous pressure to plead guilty
• They lost jobs becuase employers dont keep employees with pending federal charges
• They spent tens of thousands of dollars – money they didnt have – on legal defense
• The stress destroyed relationships
• Some defendants spent months in federal pretrial detention

And then, after 12-18 months, federal prosecutors dismissed there cases. Not because the defendants won motions. Not becuase of acquittals. The government simply dismissed the charges, often with minimal explanation. In some cases, prosecutors cited insufficient evidence. In others, they determined prosecution wasnt in the interest of justice.

For these defendants, the dismissals came too late. They’d already lost there jobs. Already bankrupted themselves paying lawyers. Already suffered the psychological trauma of facing 10 year federal sentences. The dismissal didnt undo any of that damage. There was no remedy. No compensation. No apology.

This is process-as-punishment, and its become a pattern in Oregon federal prosecutions since 2020. Federal prosecutors charge aggressively, knowing many cases are weak or will be dismissed eventually. But the charging decision itself destroys the defendant financially and personally. Even if the case is later dismissed, the punishment has been inflicted.

Why does this happen? Several reasons:

1. Near-total prosecutorial discretion: Theres no state-level probable cause hearing. Grand juries indict over 99% of the time. Once charged, defendants face immense pressure to plead guilty becuase the alternative is trial with single-digit acquittal rates.
2. Federal charges carry unique stigma: Employers, landlords, banks – they all treat federal charges as disqualifying, even if the charges are later dismissed.
3. Financial burden is crushing: Retaining experienced federal counsel costs $50,000-$150,000 minimum. Most defendants cant afford that, which means they get less effective representation, which increases pressure to plead.

The indictment itself is punishment. And in Oregon, federal prosecutors have shown willingness to use this weapon even when they know the charges wont survive. The Portland protest cases prove that experimental prosecution extends beyond environmental crimes and marijuana businesses to politically charged cases were the process serves as deterrence regardless of whether convictions result.

What Actually Works in Oregon Federal Court

After everything described above – the terrorism statutes for environmental crimes, the state-legal marijuana businesses facing federal destruction, the process-as-punishment protest prosecutions – you might be wondering what actually helps when facing federal charges in Oregon. What can a federal criminal defense attorney do against this system?

Early Intervention Matters Enormously

If your being investigated but havent been charged yet, an experienced federal defense attorney can sometimes prevent charges from being filed at all. They can communicate with the Assistant US Attorney assigned to the case, present mitigating information, and shape the narrative before the government commits to an indictment. This is particularly critical in Oregon given the experimental prosecution strategies and the willingness to charge aggressively even in weak cases. Once your indicted, the leverage shifts dramatically against you.

Local Knowledge Is Critical

Understanding the specific judges and prosecutors in the District of Oregon matters. What works before Judge Michael Mosman might not work before Judge Karin Immergut. How AUSA Craig Gabriel approaches cooperation differs from how other prosecutors handle it. An attorney who’s appeared regularly in Oregon federal court, who knows the local dynamics and the specific decision-makers, has an enormous advantage over someone parachuting in from another district.

Cooperation Strategy (If Applicable)

If your going to cooperate – and cooperation can sometimes reduce decades of exposure to single-digit sentences – timing and preparation are critical. Never proffer before your attorney has fully investigated what evidence the government actually has. Never cooperate without understanding what information is valuable to prosecutors and whether you can actually deliver it. The proffer session is not the time to figure out what you know. The marijuana business cases and environmental prosecutions in Oregon often involve multi-defendant conspiracies were cooperation is the only realistic path to avoiding catastrophic sentences. But cooperation done wrong makes everything worse.

Sentencing Expertise

Sentencing in federal court is were experienced defense attorneys earn there value. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are complicated. Oregon federal judges vary in there willingness to grant downward variances. Understanding which arguments work before which judges, how to calculate offense levels correctly, when to challenge enhancements – this is technical work that requires expertise. The difference between guidelines calculations can be years or decades of your life.

The Spodek Law Group has represented clients in federal courts nationwide, including complex cases in Oregon involving environmental prosecutions, financial crimes, and drug offenses. We understand that federal defense in Oregon isnt about dramatic courtroom speeches. Its about meticulous preparation, strategic positioning, understanding the experimental prosecution environment, and knowing exactly when to fight and when to negotiate. Our approach is to give clients honest assessments of were they stand and what there options actually are – not the version that makes them feel better, but the reality they need to make informed decisions.

If federal agents have contacted you in Oregon – whether its EPA Criminal Investigation Division for environmental violations, IRS Criminal Investigation for tax issues, DEA for marijuana-related conduct, or FBI for protest-related charges – dont wait. The federal government has likely been building there case for months or years. Every day you delay is a day they get stronger and a day you lose potential leverage. Call 212-300-5196 for a consultation. We’ll give you an honest assessment of what your facing and what your options are.

This is serious. The District of Oregon operates differently than other federal districts. The progressive state reputation creates false security. The massive federal land jurisdiction creates exposure most people dont anticipate. The experimental prosecution strategies – terrorism statutes for environmental crimes, tax enforcement against state-legal businesses, process-as-punishment in politically charged cases – create catastrophic consequences for defendants who dont understand what there actually facing. Treat it accordingly.