Stages of a Federal Case Prosecution 

Stages of a Federal Case Prosecution 

1. Investigation in Federal Criminal Cases

In federal criminal cases, investigations are often complex and extensive, conducted by federal agencies such as the FBI, DEA, IRS, and others. An investigation is the first stage in the federal criminal process and can involve months or even years of surveillance, evidence collection, and undercover operations.

Federal criminal investigations are generally governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 6), which governs grand jury proceedings, and Rule 41, which deals with search and seizure protocols. Investigations may also involve electronic surveillance under the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510) or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for certain national security cases.

An essential aspect of federal criminal investigations is the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Federal courts have established numerous precedents regarding search warrants and the permissible scope of government surveillance. In cases such as United States v. Katz, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court articulated the concept of a "reasonable expectation of privacy," which plays a critical role in federal investigations involving electronic surveillance.

Josh Tomsheck and the legal team at Hofland & Tomsheck are well-versed in challenging the methods used by federal investigators and law enforcement agencies. We scrutinize the legality of search warrants, the validity of evidence obtained, and whether constitutional protections were violated during the investigation.

2. Charging a Federal Crime

The formal criminal charge in a federal case marks the transition from investigation to prosecution. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 7), a federal crime may be charged through an indictment or information. An indictment is issued by a federal grand jury, while an information is a formal charge filed directly by the prosecutor, typically in cases where the defendant waives the right to a grand jury.

Federal statutes that define crimes, such as drug trafficking (21 U.S.C. § 841), fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), or racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1962), dictate the charges. The grand jury, governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6, plays a key role in determining whether there is enough evidence to charge an individual with a federal crime.

In high-profile federal cases, the United States Attorney's Office typically leads the prosecution, and the decision to bring charges is heavily scrutinized. The U.S. Supreme Court case Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956) affirmed that indictments are not subject to challenge based on the adequacy of the evidence presented to the grand jury.

At Hofland & Tomsheck, Josh Tomsheck's expertise as a board-certified defense lawyer ensures that every charge against you is thoroughly examined for legal sufficiency. Our team's focus is on preemptively challenging improper charges, seeking early dismissal, and preventing unnecessary escalation of the case.

3. Initial Hearing

The initial hearing, also known as an arraignment, is one of the first formal proceedings in a federal criminal case. According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5, the defendant must be brought before a magistrate judge "without unnecessary delay" after their arrest. During the initial hearing, the defendant is informed of the charges, their right to counsel, and other critical rights.

The Federal Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142) governs detention or release pending trial. The presiding judge will determine whether the defendant is eligible for bail or must be detained based on factors such as flight risk or potential danger to the community. Bail hearings are often contentious, and the defense must be prepared to argue for release with appropriate conditions.

United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) established the constitutionality of preventive detention when there is clear evidence that the defendant poses a danger to society. Federal defense attorneys, like Josh Tomsheck, often challenge the prosecution's arguments for detention, especially when they are based on insufficient evidence or mischaracterizations of the defendant's background.

At Hofland & Tomsheck, we fight aggressively for fair bail terms or release pending trial, using legal precedent and a clear understanding of the defendant's rights to argue for their release.

4. Discovery

Discovery is a critical phase in any federal criminal case. According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, the prosecution is required to disclose evidence that it intends to use at trial. This includes witness statements, documents, and physical evidence. However, discovery in federal cases is often a strategic battle, with both sides navigating requests for information while maintaining confidentiality over certain evidence.

One of the most important aspects of discovery is the Brady Rule, derived from Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Under this rule, prosecutors are required to disclose any exculpatory evidence—evidence that may be favorable to the defense and could potentially exonerate the defendant.

Additionally, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs expert witness testimony, and challenges to the admissibility of such testimony may arise during discovery through Daubert motions, as seen in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

At Hofland & Tomsheck, we understand the importance of thorough discovery in building a strong defense. Josh Tomsheck and his team will work tirelessly to ensure that all relevant evidence is disclosed and that any attempt by the prosecution to withhold exculpatory evidence is challenged.

5. Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is a common resolution in federal criminal cases. According to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 11), plea agreements allow the defendant to plead guilty in exchange for reduced charges or a lighter sentence. While plea bargaining can offer a more lenient outcome, it is critical for the defense to negotiate from a position of strength.

Federal prosecutors often use the threat of long mandatory minimum sentences—such as those for drug trafficking (21 U.S.C. § 841) or firearms offenses (18 U.S.C. § 924(c))—to push for plea deals. The Sentencing Guidelines established by the United States Sentencing Commission also influence plea bargaining by setting a framework for potential penalties.

Cases like Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) have established that the prosecution must honor any promises made during plea negotiations. However, defendants should be aware that plea agreements can carry long-term consequences, including criminal records and potential deportation for non-citizens (8 U.S.C. § 1227).

At Hofland & Tomsheck, we prioritize your interests during plea negotiations. Josh Tomsheck, with his extensive experience in federal cases, will ensure that any plea offer you consider is fair, and we will not hesitate to take your case to trial if the plea terms are unfavorable.

6. Preliminary Hearing

The preliminary hearing in federal criminal cases serves to establish whether there is sufficient evidence to justify moving forward with the prosecution. According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1, a defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing unless indicted by a grand jury.

At this stage, the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate probable cause. The defense may challenge the evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and present arguments for dismissal. This hearing provides a valuable opportunity to preview the government's case and prepare for future challenges at trial.

The Fourth Amendment plays a significant role in preliminary hearings, particularly in cases involving illegal searches and seizures. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) established the "exclusionary rule," which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court.

 7. Pre-Trial Motions

Pre-trial motions are a critical aspect of federal criminal defense strategy. These motions, governed by various rules in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence, allow the defense to shape the trial by requesting specific rulings from the judge on issues such as the admissibility of evidence, dismissal of charges, or suppression of illegally obtained evidence.

One of the most common pre-trial motions is the motion to suppress, which seeks to exclude evidence that was obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. This motion is typically based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful searches and seizures. If the government obtained evidence without a valid warrant or probable cause, it can be challenged through a suppression motion. The seminal case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) established the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court.

Another important pre-trial motion is a motion to dismiss the charges, which can be filed if the defense believes there is a lack of sufficient evidence or a violation of due process rights. A famous example is United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), where the court ruled on issues related to executive privilege, highlighting the importance of pre-trial motions in defining the scope of evidence.

In federal criminal trials, motions in limine are also commonly used to request that certain evidence be excluded from the trial because it is prejudicial, irrelevant, or otherwise inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 403 allows for the exclusion of evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.

At Hofland & Tomsheck, Josh Tomsheck uses pre-trial motions strategically to challenge the prosecution's case and protect his clients' constitutional rights. His expertise ensures that any inadmissible evidence is excluded and that his clients are positioned for the best possible defense.

8. Trial

If a federal criminal case proceeds to trial, the defense and prosecution will present their evidence before a judge and, in most cases, a jury. Federal trials are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence, which dictate how evidence is presented, witnesses are examined, and objections are raised.

In federal criminal trials, the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to a public trial, an impartial jury, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to effective legal representation. These protections are fundamental to ensuring that the accused receives a fair trial. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of the Confrontation Clause, ruling that out-of-court statements cannot be admitted unless the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in the U.S. legal system. The jury is tasked with determining whether the prosecution has met this burden. Jury instructions, guided by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 30), are critical because they explain the legal standards the jury must apply.

Federal trials often involve expert witnesses, and the admissibility of their testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Under the Daubert standard, established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), expert testimony must be based on reliable methods and relevant to the facts of the case.

Josh Tomsheck, as a board-certified criminal defense lawyer, has extensive experience in federal trials. His skill in cross-examination, legal argumentation, and strategic presentation of evidence ensures that his clients receive the strongest possible defense in court.

9. Post-Trial Motions

After a federal criminal trial, if the defendant is found guilty, there are several post-trial motions that can be filed to challenge the verdict or the legal proceedings. One of the most common post-trial motions is a motion for a new trial, which can be requested under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 if there was a significant error in the trial that affected the defendant's rights. This could include newly discovered evidence, juror misconduct, or improper legal rulings by the judge.

Another important post-trial motion is the motion for judgment of acquittal, governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. This motion can be filed if the defense believes that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. The court must determine whether any rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented at trial.

In cases involving sentencing, the defense may file a motion to correct or reduce a sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. This motion is often used when there is an error in the application of the sentencing guidelines or if the defendant has provided substantial assistance to the government after sentencing.

Josh Tomsheck and the legal team at Hofland & Tomsheck are experienced in filing post-trial motions to protect their clients' rights. Whether seeking a new trial or challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Josh Tomsheck's thorough understanding of federal rules and case law provides clients with strong post-conviction advocacy.

10. Sentencing

Sentencing in federal criminal cases is governed by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which provide a framework for determining the appropriate sentence based on the severity of the offense and the defendant's criminal history. However, federal judges have discretion to deviate from the guidelines based on the facts of the case and mitigating factors.

The sentencing process begins with a pre-sentence investigation, conducted by a U.S. probation officer, who prepares a report that includes the defendant's background, the circumstances of the offense, and recommendations for sentencing. The defense has the opportunity to challenge inaccuracies in the pre-sentence report and present mitigating evidence.

Judges also consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which outlines factors such as the nature of the offense, the need for deterrence, and the protection of the public. In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the sentencing guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, allowing judges greater flexibility in imposing sentences that fit the individual circumstances of the case.

In federal cases involving mandatory minimum sentences, such as drug trafficking (21 U.S.C. § 841) or firearm offenses (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), the judge's discretion may be limited, but there are still opportunities to seek reductions or alternatives to incarceration. The First Step Act has introduced reforms that allow for early release and reduced sentences for certain nonviolent offenders.

At Hofland & Tomsheck, Josh Tomsheck is dedicated to advocating for the most lenient sentence possible for his clients. He presents compelling arguments for downward departures from the guidelines and explores all available options to reduce or mitigate sentencing.

11. Appeal

If a defendant is convicted in federal court, they have the right to appeal the decision to a higher court. Appeals are governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, which outlines the timeline and procedures for filing an appeal. The defendant must file a notice of appeal within 14 days of the entry of the judgment or order being appealed.

An appeal is not a new trial but rather a review of the legal errors that may have occurred during the trial or sentencing. Common grounds for appeal include improper jury instructions, evidentiary errors, and violations of the defendant's constitutional rights. The appellate court will review the trial record, briefs filed by both parties, and oral arguments before making a decision.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) established the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, which are often raised on appeal. To succeed on this claim, the defendant must show that their attorney's performance was deficient, and that the deficiency affected the outcome of the case.

At Hofland & Tomsheck, Josh Tomsheck is an experienced appellate advocate. He meticulously reviews trial records to identify appealable issues and presents strong legal arguments to challenge wrongful convictions or excessive sentences.

Josh Tomsheck and the team at Hofland & Tomsheck use preliminary hearings to challenge weak evidence and expose flaws in the prosecution's case. We fight for our clients from the very start of the legal process.