Criminal Defense Lawyers

Federal Pretrial Motions: Suppression and Dismissal

If you’re reading this, you’re likely facing federal charges—or you know someone who is. Your federal case might already be won or lost—and you have no idea. Not in the courtroom. Not at trial. Right now. Before any jury ever hears a word—and before your trial date gets locked in. This article explains the pretrial motions that can suppress illegally obtained evidence, dismiss charges outright, or create such powerful leverage that prosecutors offers dramatically better deals. Most defendants never discover these options exist. Look, here’s the thing—most federal defendants doesn’t know what legal tools they have available until it’s way to late.

The Suppression Motion Paradox – Why the 2% Statistic Lies

Here’s what every defendant should know: the statistic that suppression motions succeed less than 2% of the time is technically accurate. And technically useless. The problem is that judges and prosecutors measure success differently than you should. When a judge grants your suppression motion—meaning the evidence gets thrown out—what usually happens? The prosecution doesn’t proceed to trial with a weakened case. They don’t limp forward. They dismiss. Entire cases collapse because the evidence that built the prosecution’s foundation gets suppressed.

The real question isn’t “will the judge grant my motion?” The real questions are: Does suppression eliminate key evidence? What’s left of the government’s case without that evidence? Would prosecutors likely dismiss or offer a dramatically better plea? Think about it different. Your not filing a suppression motion hoping it gets granted at a 98% failure rate. Your filing it to create litigation risk. Strong suppression motions create what prosecutors call “trial risk”—and trial risk is what kills bad cases or forces settlement. Based off my experience with these type of cases, I seen prosecutors do things that would shock you.

Multiple well-developed suppression motions create cumulative pressure. When a defendant has three viable suppression theories, prosecutors are calculating the cost of trial risk across all three. One motion fails? Doesn’t matter irregardless of what they tell you. Three motions create reasonable doubt about whether they can win—and that’s when settlement happens. Defense attorneys who focus solely on grant rates miss the negotiation leverage. A well-developed suppression motion threat can result in dismissal or dramatically better plea offer, even if the motion would technically be denied. Their gonna use every single thing against you—and between you and I, the suppression motion itself changes how prosecutors think about you’re case.

What the Government Already Learned About You (Without a Warrant)

Federal prosecutors build cases on evidence. The question that determines whether you keep or lose that evidence is deceptively simple: Did they follow the Constitution to get it? The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. That sounds abstract until it becomes specific: Did they search you’re home without a warrant? Did they stop you without reasonable suspicion? Did they interrogate you without reading your rights? Did they track you’re phone without a warrant?

Here’s the problem law enforcement doesn’t want you to know: illegal searches happen constantly in federal investigations. They happen because officers don’t understand the law, because procedures get sloppy, because someone cuts corners. And when they happen, everything obtained from that illegal search becomes inadmissible. Suppressed. Unusable at trial. This matters because suppression often means dismissal. If the search was illegal—let’s say agents searched you’re office building based on a warrant that didn’t adequately describe the scope—then everything they seized becomes tainted. Documents. Files. Evidence. Gone.

Standing creates a technical but important barrier. You must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place or item searched. If it’s you’re home—standing is automatic. If it’s you’re vehicle—standing is clear. If your a passenger in someone else’s vehicle—standing becomes questionable. This is why attorneys need to develop standing carefully. The FBI talked to your accountant which worried them—but that’s not the real problem. The real problem is whether you had standing to challenge what they found based off of that conversation.

The timing issue creates a trap. Federal motion deadlines force you to file suppression motions within 10-14 days of arraignment. That’s not enough time to investigate thoroughly irregardless of how hard you work. Smart defense attorneys request immediate continuances for investigation, then file comprehensive motions under extended deadlines. A strong motion filed late beats a weak motion filed on time. Between you and myself, I seen too many lawyers file weak motions just to meet the deadline—and it don’t work.

Brady Violations and the Discovery Compliance Shift (2024-2025)

Brady and Giglio are names you need to know. Brady requires prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to the defense. Giglio requires disclosure of witness credibility issues. And prosecutors—frequently—doesn’t comply initially. Here’s the practical reality nobody talks about: prosecution often fails to disclose Brady/Giglio material initially, but complies once defense files a motion to compel. The filing itself, not the ruling, achieves disclosure. Government attorneys miss discoverable items. A motion filing acts as a wake-up call to compliance obligations. Most motions are withdrawn after government compliance happens.

This changed in 2024-2025. Federal prosecutors now required to complete Brady/Giglio training within 12 months of assignment, with annual 2-hour training on disclosure obligations. This creates new enforcement pressure and compliance incentive. What does that mean for you? Brady violations now have greater consequences. Training required shows awareness. Office procedures documented. Violations occur despite training—that creates a stronger foundation for claiming intentional misconduct. Your looking at a situation where the government has less excuses then they used to.

Strategic filing patterns matter. File comprehensive discovery motions early. Detail specific evidence sought. Explain relevance clearly. Most motions get withdrawn after government compliance. Occasional motions get heard; most resolved by disclosure. The emerging opportunity: Brady lists are now formalizing. Federal offices standardizing officer credibility tracking. Defense attorneys can demand early Brady lists, challenge maintenance procedures, ensure comprehensive disclosure. Early discovery of Brady lists creates significant leverage—which is exactly what you needs in federal court.

Your Three Pretrial Options and What Each One Costs

Your pretrial options break into three categories—and each creates different leverage with prosecutors. Look, here’s what you need to understand about federal pretrial motions and I’m not gonna sugarcoat it because their extremely serious and could literally destroy you’re entire life if you don’t handle this right from the very beginning irregardless of what anyone else might tell you or what you read online which half the time is completely wrong anyways.

Option 1: Suppression Motions That Create Litigation Risk. This is the most powerful lever in federal defense irregardless of what other lawyers tell you. Your filing motions that, if granted, eliminate critical evidence. Prosecutors evaluate this through a risk lens—not a merit lens like you might think. Strong suppression motions equal litigation risk equal settlement incentive. When prosecutors face trial with suppression granted, the case collapses. So they settle. They offer better plea deals. They dismiss charges based off the risk calculation. Multiple suppression theories create cumulative pressure—one motion in isolation might not move the needle, but three well-developed suppression theories? That’s different. That’s when prosecutors are calculating whether they can win at trial across all three, and when the answer becomes uncertain, they settle. This is why prosecution’s risk calculation matters more then the legal merits of individual motions. I seen cases where someone sent one email—literally just one—and the prosecutors charged them with wire fraud because that email was part of a larger scheme, but then we filed three suppression motions and suddenly their interested in talking settlement.

Option 2: Discovery Motions That Pressure Compliance. Your not betting on getting a judicial ruling that prosecutors violated Brady—your betting on compelling disclosure through motion filing. This works because prosecutors want to avoid judicial findings of Brady violation like the plague. They comply with motion to compel rather then face sanctions or appeals court attention. Most discovery motions never get heard—they get resolved by disclosure, which is what you wanted anyways. The thing is, federal prosecutors doesn’t need much to charge you with wire fraud or conspiracy. All they need is proof that you used some kind of electronic communication—email, phone call, text message, doesn’t matter what it is—and that you done it with the intent to defraud someone. And between you and I, intent is the tricky part because the government, they can argue that you had intent based off of circumstantial evidence even if you never actually said “I’m gonna defraud this person.” They’ll look at you’re behavior, you’re communications, who you was talking to, what you was saying, and they’ll build a case around that.

Option 3: Dismissal Motions on Technical Grounds. These attack indictment sufficiency, speedy trial violations, prosecutorial misconduct, or procedural defects. These motions have the advantage that judges facing heavy caseloads often grant them—dismissal clears the docket. If suppression granted, case typically dismissed anyway irregardless of whether its your first offense or not. Judge with docket pressure more likely to dismiss if path available. The sentences for federal charges, their absolutely brutal irregardless of whether this is you’re first offense or not. The sentencing guidelines are based off the amount of loss involved, and if the loss is over a certain amount—like $250,000 or $1 million or more—you’re looking at a lot more time then you would of thought.

The prosecution faces this calculus: Trial with risk of suppression denied but evidence contested? Uncertain. Offer better plea? Certain. Dismiss charges? Best outcome for certainty. The judge’s workload affects outcomes too—research your judge’s caseload, understand efficiency priorities, frame motions in terms of judicial efficiency. Plus they can add enhancements for things like being a leader of the scheme, using sophisticated means, victimizing vulnerable people, all kinds of stuff that makes the sentence go way up. And most defendants, they don’t realize how serious this is until their already convicted and their standing in front of a judge who’s about to send them to prison for many, many years.

The Speedy Trial Act as Leverage Device

The Speedy Trial Act creates a 70-day deadline. Federal prosecutors must either move cases fast, request continuances explaining reasons to court, or risk case dismissal if deadline is missed. This creates timeline pressure on prosecution, not just case dismissal possibility. Federal cases often progress slowly due to court congestion. Defense wants either quick resolution or more time. The Act forces prosecution to prioritize. Creates predictable pressure points that you can use to you’re advantage.

Here’s where it becomes leverage. Calculate the 70-day deadline precisely at case start. Document all continuances and reasons. Monitor excludable delay carefully. As deadline approaches, prosecutors know you have a motion available. Their either going to ask for continuance—explaining to judge why they need more time—or proceed on a rushed timeline, which weakens they’re position. People think they can talk their way out of this or that they can handle it on their own and that’s the biggest mistake you could make irregardless of how smart you think you are or how innocent you think you are.

The strategic alternative: If timeline favors investigation, challenge continuances. If quick resolution needed, accelerate timeline. If prosecution rushing, demand adequate discovery time. Coordinate STA strategy with motion practice timing. Understanding STA as pressure tool rather then just dismissal mechanism gives defense more leverage throughout case. Timeline becomes bargaining chip in negotiations. Prosecutors facing aggressive defense preparing for trial within 70-day window start thinking about settlement real serious, real quick. Speedy trial deadlines create natural decision points where prosecution must choose between fighting or settling—and that’s exactly when you wants them making that choice.

The Conflicting Defense Trap in Multi-Defendant Cases

Multi-defendant federal cases create a hidden trap. When multiple defendants face charges together, and each defendant’s best defense is blaming the other, joint trial forces counsel to choose which defense to present. This creates professional responsibility issues and strategic problems that most lawyers doesn’t even think about until its to late. Consider the scenario: Defendant A’s best defense is “B did it. I was just present.” Defendant B’s best defense is “A orchestrated the whole thing. I was following orders.” Joint trial means one defense gets muted. Jury gets confused. Someone’s right to effective assistance gets compromised irregardless of what the judge says about limiting instructions.

This is why severance motions matter so much more then people realize. File severance motion early. Document conflicting defense clearly. Explain jury confusion risk. Consider separate counsel if conflict apparent. Create trial record showing problem. Federal agents, they’re trained to get you to talk, and anything you say—I mean anything—can and will be used against you like they always tell you on TV. They might tell you that if you just cooperate and answer a few questions, everything will be fine. That’s a lie based off my experience. Your not gonna talk you’re way out of a federal investigation.

Severance motions less likely succeed than they should. If denied, create strong appellate record showing actual conflict, how jury handled conflicting evidence, limiting instruction inadequacy, appellate review opportunity. The signal your sending matters. Pushing hard for severance signals you believe the evidence against your client is weak—or that co-defendant’s defense undermines yours. Some defense attorneys view severance as weakness signal and resists. Others see it as core advocacy. Reality: clients in multi-defendant cases should understand joint trial risks better then they do. Better to push for severance and preserve record than proceed jointly without adequate record. What your gonna do is give them more evidence to use against you which is exactly what they want—so the first thing you need to do is shut you’re mouth and call a lawyer who knows federal law inside and out, someone who’s dealt with these type of cases before and who can protect you’re rights from day one.

When to File, What to File, and How to Avoid Waiver

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 requires certain motions be filed before trial or their waived. Different deadlines apply for different motion types. Suppression motions typically due 10-14 days after arraignment, or 21-30 days depending on court rules. Miss that deadline—you lose the right to file forever. This creates the investigation timing trap irregardless of how much time you think you have. You need time to develop suppression claims. Depositions of officers take time. Discovery takes time. But deadlines arrive before investigation is complete. Filing weak motion on deadline gets rejected. Filing no motion loses rights forever—and I mean forever, not like you can come back later and try again.

The solution: Request immediate continuances for motion practice. Get continuance before motion deadline. Conduct officer depositions to lock in testimony. Develop factual record aggressively based off what you find. File comprehensive motions under extended deadline. Build complete factual record. Create compelling hearing presentation. I can’t stress this enough: federal cases, their not like state cases. The rules are different, the prosecutors are more aggressive, the penalties are way more severe, and the whole system is designed to get convictions irregardless of whether you actually did what their accusing you of.

Strong motion filed under extended deadline beats weak motion filed timely—every single time in my experience. Courts generally grant reasonable continuance requests for motion practice—they understand that weak, premature motions waste judicial resources. Draft motions for eventual appellate review even if you expect trial court denial. Create clear factual record. Make objections explicit. Request written findings of fact. Preserve all arguments. If you think you can just hire any lawyer and they’ll handle it, your wrong. You need someone who knows the federal system, who understands how prosecutors think, who can challenge the evidence and fight for you every step of the way.

Plan appellate strategy during trial court practice. Pattern of suppression denials supports circuit appeals. Precedent affects future cases. Individual client case benefits from appeal—possible new trial—and appellate development benefits future cases. Strategic motion practice has ripple effects beyond individual prosecution. Because once you’ve been charged, the governments gonna throw everything they got at you, and if you don’t have a real strong defense, your gonna lose irregardless of how innocent you think you are. Period.

The Judge Selection and Caseload Advantage

Yes. Judge selection matters significantly—way more then most people realize. Federal judges oversee multiple cases. Trial time is precious commodity. Suppression granted typically equals case dismissed—judicial efficiency. Dismissal motions also clear docket. Judge incentives affect motion outcomes irregardless of whether judges want to admit it or not.

Research judge’s caseload and backlogs. Understand judge’s efficiency priorities. Frame motions in terms of judicial efficiency. Consider timing when court less busy. Coordinate motion strategy with court calendar. If suppression likely results in dismissal—file motion. If suppression leaves substantial evidence—file anyway for pressure. Judge facing docket pressure more likely dismiss if path available. Judge with lighter docket more likely proceed to trial based off they’re workload.

This doesn’t mean judges are mercenary—don’t get me wrong. It means their human. Heavy caseload creates pressure to resolve cases. Suppression motions that lead to dismissal serve that goal. Your motion strategy should account for your judge’s workload reality and efficiency incentives. I been doing this for many, many years and I seen what happens when people don’t take these things serious enough. They end up convicted. They end up in prison. And they wish they would of done things different.

The Decision Point Is Now

Your federal case is not decided at trial. It’s decided right now—during pretrial motion practice. This is where suppression happens. This is where leverage is created. This is where you discover whether the prosecution’s case survives challenge. Most defendants never understand what pretrial motions can accomplish irregardless of how many times someone tries to explain it to them. They don’t know that suppression motions create litigation risk. They don’t know that Brady violations force dismissal. They don’t know that discovery motions pressure compliance. They don’t know that Speedy Trial Act creates negotiation leverage.

You do now. Before you accept any plea offer, before your motion filing deadline passes, before prosecutors lock in their position—understand what legal tools you have available. Talk to an experienced federal criminal defense attorney who knows motion practice. Not someone who settles cases. Someone who wins them. Federal pretrial motions separate cases that get dismissed from cases that proceed to trial. They separate favorable plea offers from terrible ones. They separate defendants who understood their leverage from defendants who didn’t.

So what should you do right now? First thing: don’t talk to nobody about you’re case. Not you’re family. Not you’re friends. Nobody. Because anything you say, it can be used against you later irregardless of who you was talking to. Second: call a federal defense lawyer who knows what their doing. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Right now. Because the longer you wait, the worse things gonna get. And third: understand that this is real serious and your facing real time in federal prison if you don’t fight this the right way.

I been doing this for many, many years and I seen what happens when people don’t take these charges serious enough based off what I’ve experienced in federal court. They end up convicted. They end up in prison. And they wish they would of done things different. Don’t be that person. Call us. We’re here 24/7. We answer you’re calls. We fight for you. And we know how to win irregardless of what the government throws at you. Your freedom depends on it—and that’s not something to take lightly regardless of what anyone tells you.

Get a risk-free consultation immediately. Your motion deadline won’t wait.