Georgia Criminal Defense Blog

Montgomery Cocaine Ring Busted; 16 Individuals Charged with Conspiracy

According to a July 10, 2008 federal grand jury indictment, 16 Montgomery, Alabama men and women were charged with a conspiracy to manufacture and distribute powder and crack cocaine throughout the region. The federal drug crime and conspiracy charges allege that during the first half of 2008, the 16 individuals along with other co-conspirators developed, financed, and maintained a drug-trafficking organization that supplied the Montgomery region with illegal narcotics. A spokesperson for the Drug Enforcement Administration suggested that the dismantling the ring could have a significant and long-lasting impact on the Montgomery, AL drug scene.

If convicted, the 16 defendants could potentially serve a decade in prison and pay as much as $4 million in fines -- just for the conspiracy charge. A number of agencies and taskforces were involved in the investigation that yielded the cocaine distribution and conspiracy charges, including the Alabama State National Guard, the DEA, the Alabama Attorney General's Office, and a special Gulf Coast drug-trafficking force.

Continue reading "Cocaine Distribution and Conspiracy Charges in Narcotic Trafficking Ring" »

Posted by Conaway, Strickler & Margolis, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Defense , Drug Defense , Federal Crimes

Bookmark:

Two Modesto Residents Sentenced for Criminal Marijuana Conspiracy

On November 4, 2008, the United States District Court sentenced two Modesto, CA residents, Luke Anthony Scarmazzo and Ricardo Ruiz Montes, to two decades in jail on federal drug crime charges for their participation in a massive criminal marijuana manufacturing and distribution enterprise.

According to the prosecution, the defendants got a license from the city to run a business specializing in organic healthcare products. However, this enterprise, known as California Healthcare Collective, restricted its activities to selling and distributing marijuana.

Over the course of three years, from 2004 to 2006, the California Healthcare Collective brought in millions of dollars -- a low estimate suggests the figure at $4.5 million, while a higher estimate, corroborated by evidence, suggests that the number may have been as high as $9 million. Illegally, Scarmazzo and Montes used their earnings to buy personal property, such as a Mercedes valued at nearly $200,000.

Continue reading "Federal Drug Crime Defendants Receive 20 Years Imprisonment" »

Posted by Conaway, Strickler & Margolis, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Defense , Drug Defense , Federal Crimes

Bookmark:

On December 8, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court heard opening arguments in a case that may have long-term implications for drivers nationwide. The matter in question, Arizona vs. Johnson, pertains to whether or not a police officer has the authority to pat down a driver in search of weapons -- even if the driver is under no suspicion of committing or preparing to commit a crime.

The Supreme Court has struggled for nearly a century to determine how officers and drivers should interact at roadside stops. In 1925, the High Court decided a landmark case that diminished the scope of the "right to privacy" in the special case of automobile stops.

The constitutionality of a traffic stop usually hinges on interpretations of the Fourth Amendment. Previously, the court has had top grapple with how to treat drivers stopped for long periods of time, drivers found with suspicious items, and drivers in possession of weapons or firearms in compartments. Although the court has over the years tried to elucidate clear and easy-to-follow rules for how police and drivers should interact, this project has met with mixed success, to say the least.

Continue reading "Arizona Case Sheds Light on what a Police Officer may do at a Roadside Stop" »

Posted by Conaway, Strickler & Margolis, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

On Friday, December 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Travelers Indemnity Company vs. Bailey et al, a complicated bankruptcy case that was originally decided in federal bankruptcy court. The case involves an asbestos company, Johns Manville, that had been implicated in a class action suit involving approximately 16,000 people, who claimed damages relating to asbestos poisoning and exposure. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Johns Manville's insurer at the time, subsequently came under legal fire when the plaintiffs asserted that Travelers had also known about the asbestos dangers and had failed to disclose their knowledge to the general public. The claim argued that Travelers should bear some culpability for injuries to the calimants.

According to the defense, the claimants targeted Travelers only because Johns Manville had earlier filed for bankruptcy to shield itself from the fallout from the class action suit.

The Supreme Court in this case found for the insurers. The majority opinion agreed that claimants' case was invalid because it appeared to be designed in part to skirt a ban on lawsuits imposed by the bankruptcy.

If you or your company has been charged with a federal crime, you need a superior legal defense team in your corner to prepare you for the rigors ahead. Whether you are dealing with a federal drug charge, battling a property or fraud charge, or otherwise preparing to meet an aggressive prosecution, you can trust the firm of Conaway & Strickler, P.C. Our lawyers boast a proven aptitude for federal criminal defense, and we have built a reputation for success in complex cases. Contact us at (888)883-9091 for a free consultation of your case.

Posted by Conaway, Strickler & Margolis, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Federal Crimes

Bookmark:

On October 20, 2008, the Supreme Court granted to hear the case of Flores-Figueroa vs. the United States to decide a point of law that might yield profound ramifications for Federal identity theft law. In the original case, the defendant had been accused of stealing identifying documents and using the info to stay illegally in the United States. He was convicted and sentenced to six years and three months by the Circuit Court of Indiana. At issue was whether or not Flores-Figueroa knew that he was using someone else's social security number and alien registration card. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case to determine whether or not a lack of knowledge that one was committing identity theft might limit the scope of possible punishments. The Circuit Court judges who originally ruled on the case noted that they had had a difficult time precisely construing the word/concept of “knowingly” as it related to Flores-Figueroa's case.

If you've been charged with identity theft or any other federal crime, the consequences of not retaining an insightful attorney to represent you can be grave. The federal government compels tremendous resources to prosecute defendants. Fortunately, you can turn to the law firm of Conaway & Strickler, P.C. to discover effective legal counsel. We have a nearly unparalleled track record for helping criminal defendants fight back against federal charges, and we’re happy to provide testimonials and a free consultation upon request. Discuss your matter with an experienced federal crime attorney by calling (888) 883-9091. Empower yourself today with a better federal criminal defense.

Posted by Conaway, Strickler & Margolis, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Federal Crimes , Identity Theft

Bookmark:

Disgraced ex-Alabama governor Don Siegelman had been sentenced for seven years in jail for a 2000 federal bribery conviction. But according to a December 9, 2008 article in the New York Times, Siegelman's lawyers now believe that the conviction can be overturned.

Siegelman's troubles stemmed from an appointment the governor made on behalf of a generous contributor. At the time of trial his case, which was heard by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, riveted both regional and national political observers. Many Democrats suggested that Siegelman's sentencing over the federal criminal charges had less to do with the merits of the prosecution's case than it did with the fact that the governor was a Democrat. Indeed, this insinuation that the Justice Department had been acting politically provoked a media firestorm.

From the initial comments of Supreme Court justices, it appears that the ex-governor's arguments that his conviction had been politicized will likely not hold much water. That said, Justice James Hill implied that one of the major pieces of evidence against the governor -- an off-the-record conversation with an aide -- may be of dubious value to the prosecution. Lawyers for the ex-governor will likely argue that this conversation was “circumstantial evidence” and as such should not have been allowed or at least not have been weighted as heavily as it was. In addition, some speculate that the defense may argue that one or more of the jurors had been biased against political officials.

Continue reading "Alabama's Ex-Governor Appeals his Conviction" »

Posted by Conaway, Strickler & Margolis, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Federal Crimes

Bookmark:

In the weeks following the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, President George W. Bush and authorities at the Pentagon developed new legal procedures to deal with captured individuals associated with the international Al-Qaeda terrorist network. One of the most interesting test cases for these new rules involved a man named Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a native of the country of Qatar, who came to the United States on September 10, 2001, along with his family, ostensibly to study at Bradley University. Soon after the attacks, on suspicion from investigative government agencies, al-Marri was arrested and later indicted as an enemy combatant. He was sentenced to military detention for the federal crime of terrorism and for his role as a sleeper agent for the terrorist network. The prosecutors charged that al-Marri had met with Osama bin Laden, trained at Al-Qaeda facilities in Afghanistan, and had been planning a potential cyanide assault on United States banks.

At issue has always been how the al-Marri case should be handled. In 2003, under the direction of the president, al-Marri was ordered to be held in isolation. The defendant's counsel, a lawyer affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that holding his client indefinitely at a military facility was unconstitutional, according to the Bill of Rights. Arguments on both sides of the case discussed questions of national security, privacy, and the limits of presidential authority. The Supreme Court's ruling on the matter will likely be seen as a potential sea change in how the justice system construes the nature of terrorism.

Finessing a defense to a federal criminal charge can be tough, even if you're not directly indicted by the President of the United States. The federal government can bring a tremendous amount of resources to bear, and defendants must be prepared to battle tirelessly to get protections due to them under the Constitution. Conaway & Strickler, P.C., one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense firms, can provide a free no-obligation consultation for you about your federal defense matter. Get in touch with one of our representatives today at ny-federalcrimeslawyers.com or by dialing our offices here at (888) 883-9091.

Posted by Conaway, Strickler & Margolis, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark: