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.
A safety valve is an exception to mandatory minimum sentencing laws in federal criminal cases. It allows a judge to sentence a defendant below the mandatory minimum term if certain conditions are met. Safety valves provide important relief for low-level, nonviolent offenders who would otherwise face disproportionately harsh mandatory minimum sentences.
Mandatory minimum sentences set a minimum prison term that must be imposed for certain federal crimes. Judges have no discretion to go below this mandatory floor, even if they feel the sentence is too severe for a particular defendant.
Safety valves create a narrow exception to mandatory minimums. They allow judges to disregard the mandatory minimum and impose a more appropriate sentence, if the defendant meets certain criteria. While safety valves do not eliminate mandatory minimums entirely, they provide a “release valve” in cases where the mandatory sentence would be unjust.
The main effect of qualifying for a safety valve is the judge can go below the mandatory minimum when determining the sentence. This allows the judge to tailor the sentence based on the individual circumstances of the case, rather than being bound by a “one-size-fits-all” mandatory term set by statute.
In addition to relief from the mandatory minimum, defendants who qualify for a safety valve also receive a 2-level reduction in their offense level under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. This further reduces the sentencing range calculated under the Guidelines, beyond just the relief from the statutory mandatory minimum.
Congress created federal mandatory minimum sentences during the “War on Drugs” in the 1980s and 1990s. Their original purpose was to punish high-level drug traffickers and kingpins. But in practice, mandatory minimums often resulted in low-level offenders receiving harsh sentences that were disproportionate to their conduct.
Safety valves were introduced to help remedy this problem. They provide an exception for less culpable offenders who otherwise would get excessive mandatory minimum sentences.
The first federal safety valve was enacted in 1994. It originally applied quite narrowly, only benefitting first-time, nonviolent drug offenders who provided full cooperation to the Government.
Over time, Congress has recognized the importance of expanding safety valves to cover more defendants. Recent reforms have focused on broadening safety valves to reduce over-incarceration of lower-level drug offenders.
For example, the First Step Act of 2018 expanded the federal safety valve by allowing defendants with slightly longer criminal histories to qualify. This change opened up the safety valve to more low-level drug offenders.
Safety valves provide several important benefits:
Overall, safety valves help restore balance, proportionality, and fairness to federal drug sentencing. They provide a release valve for injustice caused by inflexible mandatory minimum statutes.
To receive safety valve relief, the defendant bears the burden of proving they have satisfied all five eligibility criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
The criteria are applied strictly. Failure to meet even one prong will disqualify the defendant from safety valve relief. Let’s look closer at what each requirement entails:
The defendant must have no more than 4 criminal history points under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Certain minor convictions do not count at all:
The 4-point threshold was increased from 1 point by the First Step Act of 2018. This expanded the safety valve to defendants with slightly more criminal history.
The offense must be nonviolent with no possession of dangerous weapons. This includes both the defendant’s own conduct and anyone else they “aided and abetted.”
Mere presence of a firearm that is unrelated to the offense will not necessarily disqualify the defendant. However, active use or possession of a firearm in connection with drug trafficking will preclude safety valve eligibility.
If the offense resulted in death or serious injury to any person, the safety valve is unavailable. Serious bodily injury means things like permanent or life-threatening injury, loss of limb, disfigurement, or coma.
The defendant cannot have played an aggravating role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the criminal activity. This determination is based on sentencing enhancements for aggravating role under the Guidelines.
If the defendant exercised any degree of control or organizational authority over others involved in the offense, they cannot qualify for the safety valve. But having a mere buyer/seller relationship with others does not preclude eligibility.
By the time of sentencing, the defendant must have truthfully provided the Government with all evidence and information about the offense and relevant conduct. This cooperation is often provided through a “safety valve proffer” with prosecutors.
The defendant must disclose everything they know about both their own involvement and anyone else’s participation in the criminal activity. Omissions or lying will disqualify the defendant from safety valve relief.
If the defendant establishes they have met all five safety valve criteria, the judge is permitted – but not required – to impose a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum.
In making this determination, the judge must consider the sentencing factors laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These include things like the defendant’s history and characteristics, the nature of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment, and the kinds of sentences available.
If the judge concludes a sentence below the mandatory minimum would be sufficient to serve these purposes, they can disregard the mandatory minimum and impose a lower sentence within the Guidelines range.
However, the judge is never required to impose a below-minimum sentence, even if the safety valve applies. The safety valve simply gives the judge discretion to deviate below the mandatory minimum if appropriate based on the § 3553(a) factors.
If the judge does impose a below-minimum sentence, they must explain their reasons on the record. This promotes transparency and allows appellate review of whether the safety valve was applied appropriately.
In addition to relief from the mandatory minimum, the judge must also reduce the defendant’s offense level by 2 levels under the Guidelines if the safety valve applies. So the safety valve provides a double benefit – relief from the mandatory minimum, plus a lower Guidelines range.
The federal safety valve statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), lists the specific offenses that are eligible:
So the safety valve only applies to certain drug offenses carrying mandatory minimum sentences. Other types of federal crimes with mandatory minimums, such as child pornography, crimes of violence, or firearms offenses, are not eligible.
Please fill out the form below to receive a free consultation, we will respond to
your inquiry within 24-hours guaranteed.