Covered by NYDaily News. Las Vegas man accused of threatening a prominent attorney and making vile remarks.
Covered by New York Times, and other outlets. Fake heiress accused of conning the city’s wealthy, and has an HBO special being made about her.
Accused of stalking Alec Baldwin. The case garnered nationwide attention, with USAToday, NYPost, and other media outlets following it closely.
Juror who prompted calls for new Ghislaine Maxwell trial turns to lawyer who defended Anna Sorokin.
Clients can use our portal to track the status of their case, stay in touch with us, upload documents, and more.
Regardless of the type of situation you're facing, our attorneys are here to help you get quality representation.
We can setup consultations in person, over Zoom, or over the phone to help you. Bottom line, we're here to help you win your case.
The Spodek Law Group understands how delicate high-profile cases can be, and has a strong track record of getting positive outcomes. Our lawyers service a clientele that is nationwide. With offices in both LA and NYC, and cases all across the country - Spodek Law Group is a top tier law firm.
Todd Spodek is a second generation attorney with immense experience. He has many years of experience handling 100’s of tough and hard to win trials. He’s been featured on major news outlets, such as New York Post, Newsweek, Fox 5 New York, South China Morning Post, Insider.com, and many others.
In 2022, Netflix released a series about one of Todd’s clients: Anna Delvey/Anna Sorokin.
Why Clients Choose Spodek Law Group
The reason is simple: clients want white glove service, and lawyers who can win. Every single client who works with the Spodek Law Group is aware that the attorney they hire could drastically change the outcome of their case. Hiring the Spodek Law Group means you’re taking your future seriously. Our lawyers handle cases nationwide, ranging from NYC to LA. Our philosophy is fair and simple: our nyc criminal lawyers only take on clients who we know will benefit from our services.
We’re selective about the clients we work with, and only take on cases we know align with our experience – and where we can make a difference. This is different from other law firms who are not invested in your success nor care about your outcome.
If you have a legal issue, call us for a consultation.
We are available 24/7, to help you with any – and all, challenges you face.
Last Updated on: 20th October 2023, 10:12 am
Getting charged with a federal crime can be scary. The stakes are high, and the sentencing guidelines are complicated. As your case moves forward, one of your big questions will be “how much time am I really facing?”
While the final sentence depends on a lot of factors, there are some key things that judges consider when deciding federal punishments. Understanding these can help you know what to expect and prepare your legal strategy.
The charges filed by federal prosecutors are the starting point for determining your sentence. The type of crime, the specific statutes violated, and the severity of the charges impact the potential prison time.
For example, a federal wire fraud conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. But a minor theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641 may only be punishable by up to 1 year.
The number of charges and any sentencing enhancements will also matter. Prosecutors often stack multiple charges related to the same underlying crime, which exposes defendants to longer sentences.
While judges have discretion, most federal sentences are heavily influenced by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The guidelines provide detailed instructions for calculating a recommended range based on the crime, the defendant’s criminal history, and other factors.
This process considers things like:
The final offense level and criminal history determine the recommended sentencing range per the guidelines’ sentencing table. While they are advisory, judges tend to stay within the guidelines.
Some federal statutes require judges to impose a mandatory minimum prison term if certain conditions are met. This legally binds the court to sentence defendants to a certain number of years.
For example, someone convicted of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 faces a mandatory minimum 7 years just for using a weapon. Other crimes like drug trafficking, child pornography, and illegal gun possession also carry mandatory minimums.
These limit judicial discretion and often result in harsher sentences. However, prosecutors can file motions to reduce mandatory minimums in some cases, allowing judges to go below the threshold.
Before a federal sentencing hearing, both the prosecution and defense submit sentencing memorandums. These outline arguments about what they feel the appropriate sentence should be and why.
The defense memo will emphasize mitigating factors that support leniency. Things like a defendant’s poor upbringing, mental health issues, and lack of criminal history may be cited. The prosecution uses their memo to argue for harsher punishment.
Judges review these filings to help inform their decision. Unique personal circumstances described in the defense memorandum can sometimes lead to lower sentences.
One of the surest ways to reduce a federal sentence is cooperating with the prosecution. Defendants can provide substantial assistance by giving information or testifying for the government in other cases.
In exchange, prosecutors will file a 5K1.1 motion advising the judge to impose a lower sentence than the guidelines recommend. This is a powerful tool for securing a reduced punishment.
Many federal cases end in a plea deal where defendants agree to plead guilty in exchange for sentencing concessions by the government. This avoids trial and provides certainty of the outcome.
Plea agreements often bind the government to dismissing charges or recommending a lenient sentence. Judges have discretion to accept or reject the deal’s proposed sentence, but pleas nonetheless help secure better outcomes in most cases.
At the sentencing hearing itself, federal judges will consider arguments and evidence from both sides before imposing a final sentence. This gives defendants a chance to directly address the court and humanize themselves beyond just being a criminal on paper.
Judges look at how sincerely remorseful and willing to rehabilitate a defendant seems. Passionate advocacy from defense lawyers can also sway judges to be more lenient in borderline cases.
Federal probation officers play a key role in advising courts on sentencing. After a conviction, they conduct background investigations of defendants and recommend sentences to the judge.
Probation officers calculate guideline ranges and assess factors like a defendant’s role in the crime, criminal record, and family circumstances. Their recommendations carry significant weight, so having an officer advocate for leniency can help.
Each judge has their own philosophy, tendencies, and pet peeves when it comes to sentencing. Lawyers analyze a judge’s past rulings to gauge what they prioritize and how harsh they tend to be.
Some judges are known to be more sympathetic to certain arguments while others hand out tougher sentences. Understanding your judge can reveal opportunities to tailor your strategy.
Getting your case in front of a judge inclined to be more merciful can make a big difference. But you don’t have control over judge assignments, so this factor is about making the best of the hand you’re dealt.
A defendant’s criminal past is a key sentencing consideration. Those with minor records generally receive lower sentences than career criminals facing their latest conviction.
The guidelines use a point system to determine criminal history categories ranging from I to VI. More extensive records result in higher categories and stiffer recommended sentences.
Related factors like parole/probation status at the time of the offense, uncharged conduct, and gang affiliations also impact how judges view past crimes.
Federal law allows judges to factor public safety into sentences. Defendants viewed as an ongoing threat may get longer terms to protect the community.
However, empirical data shows age and criminal history are better predictors of recidivism than long sentences. Many experts argue excessive terms based on perceived dangerousness are unjustified and ineffective.
One sentencing goal is avoiding unwarranted disparities between defendants who commit similar crimes. Judges don’t want to impose much harsher sentences for the same offenses.
The guidelines were created to promote uniformity and proportionality. But critics argue they often have the opposite effect due to how the complex rules apply differently in each case.
Judges are allowed to deviate from the guidelines to avoid disparity, but this is uncommon. Sentencing similarities for comparable cases are closely scrutinized on appeal.
While you don’t control every factor, there are things you can do to get the lowest sentence possible:
Federal sentencing is a high-stakes process with many complexities. But understanding how judges make decisions can help you develop an effective strategy. The best approach depends on the unique circumstances of your case.
Please fill out the form below to receive a free consultation, we will respond to
your inquiry within 24-hours guaranteed.