Blog
The Federal Criminal Process
The federal criminal process does not begin when charges are filed. It begins, in most cases, months or years before the defendant becomes aware of it, in a room the defendant will never see, with documents the defendant will never read. One perceives the contours of a federal investigation only in retrospect, and by then the architecture of the case has been constructed around the subject like scaffolding around a condemned structure.
This is the first thing to understand about federal criminal law: the government’s advantage is not principally one of resources, though the resources are considerable. The advantage is temporal. Federal prosecutors operate on a timeline they control, with an investigative apparatus that can sustain attention for years without producing a public record.
The defendant enters the process at a point the government has selected, into a structure the government has designed. The sequence is predictable; the experience of it is not.
The Investigation
Federal investigations begin in silence, conducted by agencies whose jurisdictional boundaries are less precise than their organizational charts suggest. The FBI, the DEA, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, the Secret Service, the Postal Inspection Service: the list of agencies with federal investigative authority is long, and the overlap between them is considerable. An investigation may originate from a tip, from a parallel state case, from a financial filing, from a cooperating witness who is working off a sentence of their own.
The subject of a federal investigation does not, in most instances, know the investigation exists. This is by design. Grand jury subpoenas may be issued to third parties. Bank records, phone records, and email records may be obtained through legal process served on institutions rather than individuals. Agents may interview associates, employees, and former business partners, all of whom may choose not to disclose the contact.
In some cases, the subject receives what is known as a target letter: a written notification from the United States Attorney’s Office that the recipient is a target of a federal grand jury investigation. The target letter is not a charge. It is, if one is being precise, an invitation to participate in the process on terms that are not favorable. Most attorneys advise their clients not to appear before the grand jury after receiving one, though the calculus is different in every case.
The investigation phase has no fixed duration. Three months. Eighteen months. Four years. The Speedy Trial Act imposes time limits only after a charge is filed or an arrest is made, not before. A federal investigation can remain open for as long as the statute of limitations permits.
Charging and the Grand Jury
The Fifth Amendment requires that federal felony prosecutions proceed by indictment. The indictment must be approved by a grand jury, a body of sixteen to twenty-three citizens who sit for a term that may extend for months, hearing evidence in multiple cases during their service. They meet in secret. No judge is present. No defense attorney is permitted in the room.
The grand jury hears only from the prosecution and its witnesses. The rules of evidence do not apply. Hearsay is admissible. The subject of the investigation has no right to present a defense, no right to cross-examine, and in most cases no knowledge that the proceedings are occurring. The standard is probable cause, which is a low threshold, and the grand jury’s function is to determine whether it has been met.
The result is that grand juries indict in the overwhelming majority of cases presented to them. The familiar line, attributed to a former chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. The line has endured because the observation remains, if we are being precise, not entirely inaccurate. The recent events in the District of Columbia, where grand juries declined to return indictments in several cases the current administration sought to bring, have renewed public attention to the grand jury’s capacity to function as something other than a rubber stamp. But these refusals were exceptional. The ordinary grand jury proceeding produces an indictment, and the indictment initiates the case.
For misdemeanor offenses, the prosecutor may bypass the grand jury entirely and proceed by criminal information or complaint. For felonies, the indictment is the instrument, and it is the document that initiates the case.
The Initial Appearance and Pretrial Detention
After the indictment is returned or the complaint is filed, the defendant is arrested or surrenders. What follows occurs with a speed that can disorient a person who has never been inside a federal courtroom.
The initial appearance takes place before a magistrate judge, within forty-eight hours of arrest in most cases. The defendant is informed of the charges, advised of the right to counsel, and asked whether they can afford representation. If not, the court appoints a federal public defender or a panel attorney under the Criminal Justice Act. The question of representation is settled in hours; the question of liberty takes longer.
Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, the magistrate judge must determine whether the defendant will be released pending trial or detained. The statute identifies categories of cases in which the government may request a detention hearing: crimes of violence, offenses carrying a potential sentence of life imprisonment or death, narcotics offenses punishable by ten or more years, and cases involving serious flight risk or obstruction of justice. In practice, the government seeks detention in a wide range of cases, and the statute’s rebuttable presumptions (which apply in drug cases and others, placing the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that release conditions can reasonably assure both appearance and community safety) have expanded pretrial detention well beyond what Congress described as its intended scope.
The detention hearing itself is a proceeding where the ordinary rules of evidence are relaxed. A case agent sits at counsel table and summarizes the evidence. The government must establish flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence and dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence, but the hearing is not a trial, and the standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
What Congress intended as an exception has become, in many districts, closer to the norm. Close to two-thirds of federal defendants are now detained for the entire pretrial period, and the average duration of that detention approaches a year. The defendant who is detained pretrial is less able to participate in the preparation of a defense, less able to sustain employment, and more likely to plead guilty than a similarly situated defendant who was released. Whether the system intended this outcome or merely failed to prevent it is a question worth considering.
The detention decision is among the most consequential early events in a federal case. It receives less attention than trial proceedings, which most federal defendants will never see.
The Machinery of the Plea
Federal criminal cases end, in the overwhelming majority, not in trial but in a guilty plea. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Missouri v. Frye that the American criminal justice system is, for the most part, a system of pleas rather than a system of trials.
This is the point at which the description of the federal process departs from what most people expect. The expectation, formed by courtroom dramas and constitutional civics, is that a person accused of a crime will have a day in court before a jury. The reality is that the day in court, for the vast majority, is the sentencing hearing, and the question before the court is not guilt or innocence but duration.
A federal plea agreement is a contract. It may be structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), in which the government recommends a sentence but the court is free to impose any lawful sentence, or under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), in which the parties agree to a specific sentence that binds the court if accepted. The distinction matters enormously, and a defendant who does not understand it may plead guilty expecting one outcome and receive another.
The plea negotiation itself is an exchange conducted in the shadow of the Sentencing Guidelines, the mandatory minimum statutes, and the government’s charging power. The government controls which charges to bring, which charges to dismiss, and whether to file a motion for downward departure based on cooperation. The defendant’s bargaining position, such as it exists, is the cost and uncertainty the government would bear at trial. But in a system where trials are rare and conviction rates at trial are high, that position is limited.
In 2019, the American Bar Association convened a Plea Bargain Task Force to examine how plea bargaining functions in practice. The task force found that the process can be coercive, that pretrial detention pressures defendants into guilty pleas, and that some defendants plead guilty to offenses they did not commit. The findings confirmed what practitioners in this field have observed for years, though the scale of the problem may be larger than the task force’s report could capture.
We approach plea negotiations with the sentencing calculation already completed in draft, because the conversation with the client cannot be honest without it. The client needs to know the Guidelines range, the applicable mandatory minimums, the probable effect of acceptance of responsibility, and the realistic sentencing exposure if the case goes to trial versus the probable outcome of a plea. These are not abstract figures. They correspond to years. They correspond to a person’s remaining relationship with their children, their career, the physical space they will occupy for what may be a long time.
The letter from the United States Attorney arrives, and the terms are stated in the letter, and the defendant reads those terms at a kitchen table or in a conference room or in a holding cell. One can explain the law and the calculation; what one cannot explain is what a particular number of months will feel like from the inside.
The plea colloquy, conducted before a district judge under Rule 11, requires the court to determine that the plea is knowing and voluntary, that the defendant understands the rights being waived, and that a factual basis supports the plea. The court asks questions. The defendant answers. The exchange is recorded and transcribed. After the plea is entered and accepted, the case proceeds to sentencing.
Discovery Obligations
Federal discovery operates under a framework that is considerably less generous than its civil counterpart. The governing authorities are Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, the Jencks Act, and the constitutional obligations established by Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States.
Rule 16 requires the government to produce the defendant’s own statements, documents, and tangible objects, as well as the results of examinations and tests. Brady requires disclosure of evidence favorable to the defendant that is material to guilt or punishment. Giglio v. United States extended this obligation to impeachment evidence, including information bearing on the credibility of government witnesses. The Jencks Act governs the timing of witness statement disclosure, which in the federal system need not occur until after the witness has testified on direct examination, though many districts provide earlier access as a matter of local rule.
The gap between the constitutional standard and what defense counsel needs to prepare a defense is, in most cases, substantial. Brady requires disclosure of material evidence, but materiality is assessed after the fact, by the reviewing court, not by the prosecutor deciding in the moment what to produce. This creates an asymmetry that defense practitioners understand: the prosecutor, who controls the evidence, determines what qualifies as favorable and material, applying a standard that will be reviewed only later, on appeal, under a deferential standard.
In this firm’s experience, Brady compliance varies between offices and between individual prosecutors within the same office. Some Assistant United States Attorneys produce open-file discovery early. Others produce the minimum required by Rule 16 and reserve Brady and Jencks material until days before trial. The Department of Justice’s own guidelines instruct prosecutors to resolve doubt in favor of disclosure. Whether that instruction is followed depends, in our experience, more on the culture of the particular office than on any enforceable mechanism.
Trial
The federal criminal trial, when it occurs, is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant retains the right to confront witnesses, to compel attendance, and to testify or remain silent.
Jury selection in federal court is often conducted by the judge rather than the attorneys, though practices vary. The scope of questioning is narrower than in many state courts. The trial proceeds through opening statements, the government’s case, the defense case if one is presented, closing arguments, instructions, and deliberation. A case that might require three weeks in state court may conclude in five or six days in federal court. Judges control the pace, and witnesses are expected to have been prepared.
The government does not bring cases it expects to lose. The years of investigation that precede most indictments, combined with the screening function of the grand jury, produce a trial record that is usually extensive. Acquittals occur, and when they do, they tend to involve failures of proof on specific elements or credibility problems with key witnesses. But the defendant who proceeds to trial in federal court is accepting a risk that most people, having seen the numbers, decline.
Sentencing Under the Guidelines
Since United States v. Booker, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, though their influence on outcomes remains considerable. The sentencing process begins with the Presentence Investigation Report, prepared by the United States Probation Office. The probation officer calculates the applicable Guidelines range based on the offense level and the defendant’s criminal history category.
The resulting range, expressed as a number of months, is the starting point for the sentencing hearing. The court must then consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a): the nature of the offense, the history of the defendant, the need for deterrence, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable range, and the need to avoid unwarranted disparities.
Sentencing in federal court involves preparation that most defendants do not anticipate. The Guidelines calculation is technical, and errors in the Presentence Report can shift the advisory range by years. Errors appear in the characterization of relevant conduct, the application of specific offense characteristics, and the criminal history computation. We review every Presentence Report line by line and file objections where the calculation departs from what the evidence supports, because the probation officer’s initial calculation, if left uncontested, tends to become the court’s baseline.
The sentencing hearing is the proceeding that determines the outcome for most federal defendants. The court hears argument, considers letters, reviews the Report and objections, and imposes sentence. The sentence may include imprisonment, supervised release, fines, and restitution.
The Sentencing Commission continues to amend the Guidelines annually. The proposed amendments for 2026 include changes to procedures for multiple-count cases and revisions to offense characteristics that courts have permitted but rarely applied. Whether those amendments will be made retroactive is, as of this writing, an open question.
A federal criminal case is a sequence of decisions, each narrowing the range of outcomes that follow. The investigation determines the scope of the charges. The charges determine the position available in plea negotiations. The plea or verdict determines the starting point for sentencing. At each stage, what has already occurred constrains what can be undone.
Whether the outcome in any individual case is just is a question the process leaves to the people inside it. That question belongs to the defendant, to the court, and to the attorneys who occupy the space between.
A consultation is where that conversation begins, and it assumes nothing beyond the need to understand what has already been set in motion.